D. O. RATLIFF, JOINED BY HIS WIFE, ALICE S. RATLIFF, AND RATLIFF HOLDING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARTHUR C. SCHENCK, AS RECEIVER OF THE BANK OF WAUCHULA, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree due to an equal division among the justices, establishing a precedent for affirming decisions when the court is permanently deadlocked.
When the members of the Supreme Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion, the decree of the lower court should be affirmed.
“When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the decree should be affirmed”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the decree in cases of judicial deadlock.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal by D. O. Ratliff, Alice S. Ratliff, and Ratliff Holding Company against Arthur C. Schenck, Receiver of the Bank of Wauchul…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Davis are of opinion that the decree of the Court below should -be affirmed while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice *409Terrell are of opinion that the said decree should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the decree should be affirmed; therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority o'f State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)