DAVID HARVEY
v.
STATE
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 that an equally divided court results in an affirmance.
When the members of the Florida Supreme Court are equally divided in opinion and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the court's personnel, the judgment of the lower court 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 decree should be affirmed”
This quote establishes the rule for affirming a judgment when the court is equally divided.
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 to the Florida Supreme Court. The seven justices of the court were equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the jud…
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 Whitfield, Mr. Presiding Justice Ellis, and Mr. Justice Buford, are of the opinion that the judgment of the Criminal Court of Record should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Davis 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 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 judgment of the Criminal Court of Record in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
AVhitfield, C. J., Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mary L. Retty and her husband v. Troy, 188 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…gligence of either the plaintiff or defendant is an unavoidable accident. Alagood v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W. 2d 1056. One cannot recover damages caused by uncontrollable events. Holley v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co., 184 La. 175, 165 So. 703. The law does not impose liability for a mere accident which could not have been guarded against. Daughrity v. Williams, 144 S.C. 437, 142 S.E. 722. In McCollum v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 754: “Charges on so-called…
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)