O. S. THACKER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF S. T. THACKER
v.
H. B. VINCENT

Fla. | 1939-06-09
Terrell, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.
138 Fla. 533 Florida Supreme Court (1939)
Also reported at: 189 So. 841

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment due to an equal division among the justices. This outcome signifies that the court could not reach a majority decision on whether to reverse or affirm the lower court's ruling.


Holding

The judgment of the Circuit Court granting the motion for a new trial is affirmed. This is due to the permanent and equal division of opinion among the participating justices.


Key Quotes

“When the 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 rule applied by the court when there is an equal division among justices.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The case involved an appeal of a circuit court's decision to grant a motion for a new trial. The Florida Supreme Court heard the case with six justice…

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.

Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam. —

Per Curiam. —

In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Chapman are of opinion that the judgment of the Circuit Court granting motion for new trial should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Whitfteld, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Ti-iomas are of opinion that the said judgment of the Circuit Court granting motion for new trial should be affirmed. When the 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.

Terrell, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw