| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Lake County v. Rollins is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1890. The case involved a dispute between Lake County, Florida and Rollins, a resident of the county. Rollins had been convicted of a misdemeanor and was sentenced to pay a fine. He refused to pay the fine, and Lake County sued him for the amount. Rollins argued that the county had no authority to sue him for the fine, as the county was not a legal entity and could not sue or be sued. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rollins, holding that Lake County was not a legal entity and could not sue or be sued. The Court reasoned that the county was merely a political subdivision of the state, and that the state was the only entity that could sue or be sued. The Court also held that the county had no authority to impose fines or collect them, as this was a power reserved to the state. The decision in Lake County v. Rollins established that counties are not legal entities and cannot sue or be sued. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still good law today.
Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lake County v. Rollins, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be overturned. He argued that a state statute which authorized counties to issue bonds for public works projects did not violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution because it did not impair any existing contracts between private parties or individuals. The statute only applied to future contracts and therefore could not be said to have impaired any existing ones. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there had been an impairment of contract rights, it would still have been permissible under Article I Section 10 of the Constitution as long as just compensation was provided for those affected by its enactment. Finally, he noted that while states are prohibited from passing laws which interfere with contractual obligations already made by their citizens, they do retain some power over such matters when necessary in order to promote public welfare and safety - something which this particular law sought to accomplish through its authorization of county bond issuance for public works projects.