L. L. JOHNS, AS SHERIFF OF LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND A. H. ELLZEY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
JOE WILKERSON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1927-04-20
93 Fla. 934 Florida Supreme Court (1927)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment due to an even split among the justices, citing precedent for affirmance in such cases.


Holding

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed because the Florida Supreme Court was equally divided on the issue.


Key Quotes

“In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the judgment entered by the trial court to which the writ of error herein addressed should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that said judgment should be reversed; and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment will 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, and State ex rel, Ames v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 South. Rep. 796, Yarnell v. Gregory 88 Fla. 91, Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. —.”

This quote explains the split decision among the justices and the basis for affirming the judgment.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The case involved a writ of error addressed to a judgment entered by the trial court. The specific facts leading to the judgment are not detailed in t…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam

Per Curiam

In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the judgment entered by the trial court to which the writ of error herein addressed should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that said judgment should be reversed; and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment will 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, and State ex rel, Ames v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 South. Rep. 796, Yarnell v. Gregory 88 Fla. 91, Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. —.

An order will be entered affirming the judgment herein.

All concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw