EULRIC LEE WILLIAMS
v.
STATE

Fla. | 1939-04-11
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur., Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment., Justices Whitfield and Chapman, not participating as’ authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
137 Fla. 189 Florida Supreme Court (1939) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 188 So. 121
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This is a companion case to that of Solon Driggers v. State of Florida.

The two defendants were indicted and tried jointly in both cases and each, upon being arraigned, interposed like pleas of autrefois acquit.

Therefore, the judgment is revers'ed oh authority of the opinion and judgment in the Driggers casé, supra.

So ordered.

Reversed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.

Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.

Justices Whitfield and Chapman, not participating as’ authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Standford King v. State, 145 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1940)
    …ed in Tufts v. State, 41 Fla. 663, 27 So. 218; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713; Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184, 125 So. 345; Pottinger v. State, 122 Fla. 405, 165 So. 276; Driggers v. State, 137 Fla. 182, 188 So. 118; Williams v. State, 137 Fla. 189, 188 So. 121, and in 22 C. J. S. pages 414-416, par. 278; 14 Am. Jur. p. 957, par. 278. The case of Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203, throws much light on the case at bar. As pointed out in Pottinger v. State, supra, the test is whether th…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw