JOHN W. SHISLER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WELFARE, CITY OF MIAMI,
v.
J. GERRY CURTIS
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 an equal division among the justices, establishing a precedent for affirming judgments in cases of such deadlock.
When the members of the Supreme Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the judgment should be affirmed.
“When members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the judgment should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the judgment should be affirmed”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the judgment due to an equal division among the justices.
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 where the seven justices of the Florida Supreme Court were equally divided, with three voting to affirm and three voting 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.
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Davis, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the judgment in this cause should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the said judgment should be reversed. When members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the judgment should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the judgment 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 judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)…; Sirmans v. Owen, 87 Fla. 485, 100 So. 734; State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 103 Fla. 801, 138 So. 372; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392; State ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club v. State Racing Commission, 116 Fla. 143, 156 So. 317. In the same cases and similar ones it was held that where an officer or employee is removed pursuant to purely executive authority, the courts will do no more than examine into the existence of jurisdictional facts to determine only the question of…
-
State v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1936)…andamus proceeding the State Racing Commission could be required to rescind and vacate that portion of one of its rules which it had no lawful authority, to enact; and in State, ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club, v. State Racing Commission, 116 Fla. 143, 156 So. 317, we held that mandamus would lie to require the issuance of a permit by the Com [*551] mission which it had no discretion under the circumstances to deny, and where no other adequate legal remedy existed. These last four cases represent an extension…
-
State v. Rose, 122 Fla. 227 (Fla. 1935)…ts administrative quasi-legislative (or quasi-executive) powers, is the appropriate remedy where no special statutory method of redress is otherwise available. See: State, ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club, Inc., v. State Racing Commission, 116 Fla. 143, 156 Sou. Rep. 317. The “racing season” or that period of time within- which racing can only be conducted is prescribed by Section 4 of Chapter 17276, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1935, supra. The 'pertinent part of Section 4, applicable to dog tracks, provides: ■ [*232]…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)