W. B. GRAHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
R. W. RANDALL AND S. W. LAWLER, JR., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 judgment due to a divided court, where three justices favored reversal and three favored affirmance. The court cited precedent for affirming in cases of judicial deadlock.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed when the Florida Supreme Court is equally divided, as there is no prospect of a change in judicial opinion.
“In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Browne are of opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court to which the writ of error is addressed should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice West and Mr. Justice Terrell are of opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; and, there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380; State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, Muller & Auerbach v. Cowart, and Meier v. State, the three last cited cases having been decided at this term.”
This quote explains the division among the justices and the basis for the final decision to affirm.
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 a writ of error addressed to a trial court judgment. The Florida Supreme Court heard the appeal, but the justices were equally divid…
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.
Per Curiam.
In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Browne are of opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court to which the writ of error is addressed should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice West and Mr. Justice Terrell are of opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; and, there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380; State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, Muller & Auerbach v. Cowart, and Meier v. State, the three last cited cases having been decided at this term.
An order will be entered affirming the judgment herein.
All 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)
- Quigg v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1923)
- Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1911)