BELLE E. SCHEFFEL, ET VIR.,
v.
DADE COUNTY, J. LAMAR PAXSON, N. P. LOWREY, CHARLES H. CRANDON, J. D. REDD AND CECIL A. TURNER, AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY; AND J. O. PRESTON
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 seven justices were equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse, with no prospect of immediate change. This equal division resulted in an affirmance under court precedent.
Yes, when the Supreme Court is equally divided and there is no prospect of immediate change in its personnel, the decree 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 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 specific condition under which an equally divided court results in an affirmance.
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 of a decree from the circuit court. The specific facts leading to the decree are not detailed in this per curiam opinion. …
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 Whitfield and Mr. Justice Chapman are of the opinion that the decree in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Brown, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Thomas are of the opinion that the said decree should be reversed. 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 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 adjudged 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 Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson v. Hancock, 146 Fla. 410 (Fla. 1941)…Fla. 373, 188 Sou. 787; Reaves v. Sadler, 136 Fla. 553, 189 Sou. 41; Grantham v. Grantham, 140 Fla. 120, 191 Sou. 197; Smith v. Stillman, 141 Fla. 312, 193 Sou. 63; Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616, 194 Sou. 368; Walker v. Cone, 142 Fla. 253, 194 Sou. 631; Mehaffey v. Mehaffey, 143 Fla. 157, 196 Sou. 416; Miller v. Bay-to-Gulf, 141 Fla. 452, 193 Sou. 425. On the entire record we find no reversible error. So the decree must be affirmed. So ordered. Affirmed. Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J…
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)