STATE EX REL. L. E. VICKERY
v.
D. MOWAT, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, W. R. NICHOLS AND D. D. JONES, AS MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
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 decree because the justices were equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse, indicating a deadlock in the appellate court.
The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed due to an equal division among the justices of the Florida Supreme Court.
“AAffien 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 decree 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 basis for the Court's decision to affirm the lower court's decree.
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 concerning a decree from the Circuit Court. The specific details of the underlying dispute ar…
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 case Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice AVhitfield and Mr. Justice Chapman are of the opinion that the decree in this cause should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Brown, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Thomas are of opinion that the said decree should be affirmed. AAffien 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 *711equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree 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 decreed under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Sandra Brown v. Sussman, 235 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…of such a nuisance is proscribed in the same section this court is now asked to apply. See also National Container Corporation v. State ex rel. Stockton, 138 Fla. 32, 189 So. 4, 122 A.L.R. 1000 (1939) ; State ex rel. Moore v. Gillian, 141 Fla. 707, 193 So. 751 (1940); Valdez v. State ex rel. Farrior, 142 Fla. 123, 194 So. 388 (1940). Appellee suggests several reasons why we should not hold that the present complaint states a cause of action. First it is urged that the allegations of the complaint are not…
-
Five SKY, Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein, 131 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…. It is axiomatic that the chancellor could not have prohibited a lawful business conducted in an orderly and lawful manner on the premises. See Fasson v. State ex rel. Burton, 141 Fla. 367, 193 So. 299; State ex rel. Moore v. Gillian, 141 Fla. 707, 193 So. 751. See also Federal Amusement Co. v. State ex rel. Tuppen, 159 Fla. 495, 32 So. 2d 1. However, the record shows, and the chancellor so found, that the appellants here could not operate their legitimate business at the Five O’Clock Club without permitt…
-
Shell OIL Co. v. State, 295 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…tect its quasi-sovereign interests [*650] which include the general health and welfare of the state. As we perceive the state’s contention, usury is a public nuisance which may be abated (see, State ex rel. Moore v. Gillian, Fla.1940, 141 Fla. 707, 193 So. 751), ergo since such a nuisance may be enjoined and may also adversely affect the state’s economy the state may seek monetary recovery on behalf of its citizens. We cannot agree. In Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 92 S.Ct. 885, 31 L.Ed.2d 18…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)