McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Head v. Platte County, Mo. (Kan. 1988)
- Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden (Fla. 1954)
- Conard v. State (Superior Court of Delaware 1940)
- Tropical Park, Inc. v. DEPT. OF BUS. REG. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
- State Ex Rel. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hon. Carl R. Gaertner (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)
- Department of Administration v. Horne (Fla. 1972)
- Baillie v. Walker (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court 1968)
- American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Hon (Tenn. 1962)
- Coulter v. Reese (Ala. 1954)
- State Ex Rel. Perkins v. Lee (Fla. 1940)
- Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board v. Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. (Fla. 1940)
- Winter v. Mack (Fla. 1940)
- de la Vega v. Sancho Bonet (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1940)
- de la Vega v. Sancho Bonet (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1940)
- Dowling v. W. R. Hodges & Son (Fla. 1938)
- Utley v. City of St. Petersburg (Fla. 1933)
- Blitch v. Buchanan (Fla. 1930)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Complainants allege that they are the owners of in excess of 75% of all the cattle within zone No. 14 under Chap. 9201, Acts of 1923; that said Chapter and portions thereof are invalid and that action taken thereunder by the State Live Stock Sanitary Board with reference to zone No. 14 is illegal. It is prayed that the Board be enjoined from enforcing any of the rules and regulations or provisions of Chapter 9201 in any part of zone No. 14, &c. The court denied a temporary injunction and complainants appealed. As the complainants do not allege that they own or control all the cattle in zone No. 14, the prayer for injunction is broader than complainants’ right and was properly denied.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.