WARREN H. TOOLE, WARREN H. TOOLE, JR., AND GORDON TOOLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A COPARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS AS W. H. TOOLE & SONS; CHARLES J. EICHELBERGER AND CORDIE EICHELBERGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A CO-PARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS AS EICHELBERGER & COMPANY, E. F. MOOREHOUSE, O. L. SCHULSTAD, L. T. SAMMONS, E. W. HENSLEY, S. H. MORRE, OSCAR AYLA, CHARLES E. BALL, D. A. CALEY, A. J. SIMMS, W. H. WELLS, M. F. ZERFACE, OTTO K. JOHNSON, MARIE E. BIXBY, AND M. W. LAW,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA
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, leading to an affirmance by operation of law. This case highlights a procedural outcome when a court is deadlocked.
When the members of the Supreme Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, the decree should be affirmed.
“In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Wi-iitfield and Mr. Justice Ci-iapman are of the opinion that the decree in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Brown, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Tpiomas are of the opinion that the said decree should be reversed.”
This quote establishes the equal division among the justices on the merits of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 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 seven justices of the Supreme Court were unab…
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 Wi-iitfield and Mr. Justice Ci-iapman are of the opinion that the decree in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Brown, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Tpiomas 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 *125the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnej 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 Tiiomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)