CARL P. WHITNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
LILLIAN WHITNEY, 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 that such a deadlock results in affirmance.
When the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether a decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the Court's personnel, the decree should be affirmed.
“When it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether a 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 states the rule applied by the court to resolve the 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 of a decree from the Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court justices were equally divided on whether to affirm or revers…
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 cause Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Brown are of opinion that, the decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice. Ellis and Mr. Justice Buford are of opinion that said decree should be affirmed in part and reversed in part. When it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether a 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 of 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.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, 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)