W. M. BUTLER ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
I. L. JONES, 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 trial court's decree due to a divided court, with a majority believing the decree should be upheld and a minority believing it should be reversed. The court cited previous case law to support its decision.
The decree rendered by the trial court is affirmed. The court's decision to affirm was based on a divided vote, with the majority prevailing.
“In this case Mr. Chief Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Strum are of opinion that the decree rendered by the trial court from which this appeal was taken should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Wi-iitfield, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Buford are of ^pinion that said judgment should be reversed; and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion the decree will be affirmed on the authority of State, ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 So. 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 S. R. [*613] 37; Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. 1107, 111 S. R. 110; Cravatt v. Pierson, 93 Fla. 935, 113 S. R. 94.”
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 intelligenceThis case involves an appeal from a decree rendered by a trial court. The specific facts leading to the decree are not detailed in the provided opinio…
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 Appellate Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case Mr. Chief Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Strum are of opinion that the decree rendered by the trial court from which this appeal was taken should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Wi-iitfield, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Buford are of ^pinion that said judgment should be reversed; and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion the decree will be affirmed on the authority of State, ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 So. 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 S. R. 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.
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)
- 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)
- Cravatt v. Pierson, 93 Fla. 935 (Fla. 1927)