ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
RICHARD D. SEDWICK
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 circuit court judgment due to an equal division among its six justices, meaning no majority could be formed to reverse the decision. This outcome highlights the procedural consequence of a deadlock in appellate review.
When the members of the Supreme Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion, the judgment of the lower court 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 decree should be affirmed”
This quote explains the rule applied by the court when faced with an equally divided bench.
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 six justices of the court were equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the judgm…
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 Terrell, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Thomas are of opinion that the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Chapman are of opinion that the said judgment 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 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 circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1953)…rations is purely within the discretion of the court, and the appellant’s contentions in this respect are controlled by the principle that such rulings will not be interfered with unless abuse of discretion is shown. Routh v. Williams, 141 Fla. 334, 193 So. 71; annotation, 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 931. The governing rule in respect to the second point argued is that “while a recent adjudication of insanity creates a re-, buttable presumption of * * * continued insanity, notwithstanding such adjudication a person…
-
City OF Hollywood v. Zinkil, 283 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…ion of extrinsic evidence. Extrinsic evidence such as parol evidence is permissible to explain ambiguities in a written instrument, particularly where such ambiguity 'is “latent” as distinguished from “patent”. Routh v. Williams, 1940, 141 Fla. 334, 193 So. 71; Carson v. Palmer, 1939, 139 Fla. 570, 190 So. 720; Connelly v. Smith, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 865; Paradise Beach Homes, Inc. v. South Atlantic Lbr. Co., Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 825; Wise v. Quina, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 590; Burgess v. Pine Isl…
-
Frank Marshall and wife v. Billy Johnson and wife, 392 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1980)…rict court opinion below. The parties do not dispute the ambiguity of the language nor the propriety of introducing parol or extrinsic evidence in ascertaining the intended boundary between their parcels of land. See Routh v. Williams, 141 Fla. 334, 193 So. 71 (1940); Drake v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 227 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Burgess v. Pine Island Corp., 215 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)