METROPOLITAN ICE PALACE, INC.,
v.
H. B. TABER
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 order due to an equal division among the justices, meaning the appellate court could not reach a majority decision to overturn the lower court's ruling.
The writ of certiorari is denied, and the order of the lower court is affirmed because the Supreme Court justices are equally divided in their opinions.
“When the members of the Supreme Court sit en banc for the consideration of appeals under Rule 34 of the Rules of this Court and after full consideration, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the writ of certiorari should be granted and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the writ will be denied and the decree or order below is affirmed.”
This quote establishes the rule for handling cases where the court is 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 intelligenceMetropolitan Ice Palace, Inc. appealed an interlocutory order that vacated a prior injunctive order, denied a motion for a special master, and stayed …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunctive Order cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by Certiorari from an interlocutory order entered on February 24, 1940, vacating an injunctive order theretofore issued, and also an order *826under date of April 16, 1940, denying motion for reference to a special master and staying the further proceedings, and an order entered on June 22, 1940. The appeal was prosecuted under Rule 34 of the Rules of this Court.
The record and the briefs have been examined and Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Chapman and Mr. Justice Ti-ioaias are of the opinion that the writ of certiorari should be granted and the judgment appealed from quashed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the writ of certiorari should be denied.
When the members of the Supreme Court sit en banc for the consideration of appeals under Rule 34 of the Rules of this Court and after full consideration, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the writ of certiorari should be granted and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the writ will be denied and the decree or order below is affirmed.
It is accordingly ordered, adjudged and decreed that the order or decree appealed from be 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
-
The Riggs Nat'l Bank OF Wash. v. Dade Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami, 268 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1959)…at the Riggs Bank had not shown any ground for shifting to Dade Federal the liability which Price v. Neal casts upon drawee banks for the payment of forged checks. Both parties cite and rely upon Capital City Bank v. Lewis State Bank, 143 Fla. 768, 197 So. 528. We do not think the decision bears upon the questions in this case. The Riggs Bank argues that Dade Federal, by its acts and conduct, became a participant in the forgery. We find nothing to sustain this position. The conclusions we have reached mak…