State v. Jacksonville Port Authority

Supreme Court of Florida
305 So.2d 166 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The term “industrial plant” for the purpose of issuing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds under the Florida Constitution and statutes is to be construed liberally, encompassing projects that contribute to economic prosperity, including large-scale food distribution centers and specialized industrial laundry facilities that serve other industries rather than the general public.


Facts:

  • The Jacksonville Port Authority approved a capital project for a food distribution center under construction by Publix Super Markets, Inc., in Jacksonville, Florida.
  • The Publix facility was designed to be a 250,000 square foot structure on approximately fifty acres of land, serving as part of a food distribution system for about 180 retail outlets in Florida.
  • The Jacksonville Port Authority also approved a capital project for a laundry facility in Jacksonville, to be occupied by Dixie Uniform Supply, a division of Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc.
  • The Neway laundry facility was planned to have a 28,000 square foot working area, primarily for laundering, servicing, and renovating industrial working garments.
  • The Neway facility would utilize special cleaning agents for petroleum-based soils and would serve only specified industries, not the general public.
  • Neway’s existing facility employed sixty people and had a business volume exceeding $1 million.
  • Both projects were approved for the issuance of $1 million in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds by the Jacksonville Port Authority.
  • Florida’s Article VII, Section 10(c) generally prohibits governmental units from lending credit to private entities but carves out an exception for laws authorizing revenue bonds for “industrial or manufacturing plants.”
  • Chapter 159, Part II, F.S.A., defines “project” as any capital project comprising an “industrial or manufacturing plant.”
  • The phrase “industrial plant” is not specifically defined within the bond financing provisions of the Florida Constitution or Chapter 159, F.S.A.
  • Previous Florida Supreme Court decisions approved bond issues for a beverage bottling plant and a meat processing facility.
  • The Missouri Supreme Court, in construing a similar constitutional provision, held that a laundry is purely a service institution and not an “industry.”

Procedural Posture:

  • The Jacksonville Port Authority approved two separate capital projects, a food distribution center for Publix Super Markets, Inc. and a laundry facility for Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., for the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds.
  • Separate bond validation proceedings for each project were duly conducted before the Circuit Court of Duval County (trial court/court of first instance).
  • The Duval County Circuit Court validated the bond issuance for the Publix food distribution center, finding it constituted an “industrial plant.”
  • The Duval County Circuit Court disapproved the bond issuance for the Neway laundry facility, citing evidence and reasoning from a Missouri Supreme Court case.
  • The State of Florida appealed the trial court's validation of bonds for the Publix food distribution center (Case No. 44820), making the State the appellant.
  • The Jacksonville Port Authority appealed the trial court's decision refusing to validate the bonds for the Neway laundry facility (Case No. 45392), making the Jacksonville Port Authority the appellant.
  • These two separate appeals were consolidated before the Supreme Court of Florida.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a large food distribution center or a specialized industrial laundry facility, which primarily renders services to other industries, constitute an “industrial plant” within the meaning of Article VII, Section 10(c) of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 159, Part II, Florida Statutes, thereby qualifying for Industrial Development Revenue Bonds?


Opinions:

Majority - Overton

Yes, both the food distribution center and the specialized industrial laundry facility constitute “industrial plants” as contemplated by the Florida Constitution and statutes. The court affirmed the validation of bonds for the Publix food distribution center and reversed the disapproval of bonds for the Neway laundry facility. The court reasoned that the legislative intent for the term “industrial plant” in Section 159.27(5), F.S.A., was for a liberal construction. This interpretation is supported by previous decisions approving bond issues for a beverage bottling plant and a meat processing facility, which are consistent with the broad common usage of “industry,” encompassing a division of productive or profit-making labor or enterprises that produce or supply technically substitutable goods, services, or sources of income. Regarding the food distribution center, the court found no reason why it should not qualify if bottling and meat processing plants do, given its analogous role in product distribution. Although the laundry facility primarily renders services, the court distinguished it from an ordinary commercial laundry because it is specialized, designed to meet the needs of specific industries, not the general public, and will not even maintain a cash register. The court explicitly disagreed with the restrictive holding of the Missouri Supreme Court in Keystone Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. McDonnell. The court concluded that factors such as the clientele, the nature of services, the size of the plant, and the number of employees are proper considerations, and viewing the Neway project as a comprehensive whole, it qualifies. Both projects were deemed to contribute to the prosperity of the state, fulfilling the statutory and constitutional requirements.


Dissenting - Roberts

Justices Roberts and McCain dissented from the majority opinion. The specific reasoning for their dissent is not detailed in the provided text, but their disagreement indicates a belief that one or both projects did not meet the definition of an “industrial plant” under the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, or that the majority's interpretation was overly broad.


Dissenting - McCain

Justices Roberts and McCain dissented from the majority opinion. The specific reasoning for their dissent is not detailed in the provided text, but their disagreement indicates a belief that one or both projects did not meet the definition of an “industrial plant” under the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, or that the majority's interpretation was overly broad.



Analysis:

This case significantly broadened the scope of what constitutes an “industrial plant” in Florida for the purpose of industrial development financing, moving beyond traditional manufacturing to include large-scale distribution and specialized industrial services. By rejecting a strict manufacturing-only definition and emphasizing economic contribution, the court demonstrated a judicial willingness to interpret constitutional and statutory language flexibly to promote economic development. The ruling provides a clearer framework for future cases involving non-manufacturing projects seeking state-backed financing, making such funding accessible to a wider array of businesses that contribute to the state's economy, even if they are primarily service-oriented.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. Jacksonville Port Authority (1974) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.