C. M. CRAVATT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. H. PIERSON, DEFENDANT 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's judgment due to a divided court, with no prospect of changing judicial opinions. The court cited previous cases to support its decision.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed because the Florida Supreme Court was equally divided on the matter, and no change in opinion was anticipated.
“In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court to which the writ of error is addressed should be reversed while Mr. Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; 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. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 South. Rep. 796. Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91, Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. —.”
This quote explains the division among the justices and the basis for the affirmance.
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 judgment rendered by the trial court. The specific facts leading to the judgment are not detailed in …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stare Decisis cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court to which the writ of error is addressed should be reversed while Mr. Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; 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. Amos 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
Cited By
-
Butler v. Jones, 96 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1928)…; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 So. R. 380; and State, ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 So. R. 796; Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91, 101 S. R. [*613] 37; Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. 1107, 111 S. R. 110; Cravatt v. Pierson, 93 Fla. 935, 113 S. R. 94. An order will be entered affirming the decree herein. Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.…
-
Nat'l City Bank of Memphis v. Beulah Baptist Institutional Church, 97 Fla. 857 (Fla. 1929)…R. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 So. R. 380, and State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 So. R. 796; Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91, 101 So. R. 37; Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. 1107, 111 So. R. 110; Cravatt v. Pierson, 93 Fla. 935, 113 So. R. 94. Decree affirmed. Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.…
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)
- Irwin A. Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1924)
- Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1911)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Ernest Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1924)