EARL PORTER
v.
STATE
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 judgment because the six justices were equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse, with no prospect of resolution. This per curiam affirmance is based on the principle that an equally divided court results in an affirmation.
When the members of the Supreme Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether a 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.
“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 justices are equally divided.
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 came before the Florida Supreme Court with a divided bench. Three justices were of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, while th…
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 Thomas are of opinion that the judgment in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Brown, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Chapman are of opinion that the said judgment 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 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., Wi-iitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hinzelin v. Bailly, 155 Fla. 837 (Fla. 1945)…73 Fla. 924, 75 So. 790; International Realty Associates v. McAdoo, 87 Fla. 1, 99 So. 117; Sun City Holding Co. v. Schoenfeld, 97 Fla. 777, 122 So. 252; Zambetti v. Commodores Land Co., 102 Fla. 586, 136 So. 644; and Nolan v. Lunsford, 142 Fla. 671, 196 So. 193, in which the Zambetti case was quoted from with approval. All of the cited cases relate to executory contracts, it being respondent’s contention that in the case at bar we are dealing with an executory contract not yet fully executed, and that the…
-
Edsel Posey v. Ford Motor Co., 128 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…injury of the plaintiff. This complaint does not fail to state a cause of action on any theory, as is necessary to sustain the motion to dismiss. 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings, § 126; Love v. Hannah, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 39; Nolan v. Lunsford, 142 Fla. 671, 196 So. 193, 128 A.L.R. 649. We have carefully reviewed the authorities cited by the defendant-appellees, but do not find them sufficiently in point to warrant the drastic action of dismissing the complaint. We are not concerned at this stage with the ability…
-
Seybold v. Nicholson USA Props., Ltd., 890 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…hat depends on the prior performance of some act or condition, or, as otherwise defined, is an agreement to do or to omit to do something with reference to the thing on which it depends and to which it relates. E.g., Nolan v. Lunsford, 142 Fla. 671, 196 So. 193 (1940). An agreement for the payment of a certain sum on delivery of a deed is a classic example of a dependent covenant in a contract for the sale and purchase of real property. In contrast, when an undertaking in the same contract is to be perform…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)