JOHN PAUL, AS AGENT,
v.
FLORIDA CITIES BUS COMPANY
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 due to an equal division among its six justices, meaning no majority could be reached to reverse the decision. This outcome is based on a procedural rule for equally divided courts.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed because the Florida Supreme Court justices were equally divided, and there was no prospect of an immediate change in the Court's composition.
“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 decree 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 involves an appeal of a judgment from the Circuit Court. The specific facts leading to the original judgment are not detailed in this 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 Buford, an'd Mr. Justice Thomas are of the opinion that the judgment in this cause should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Wfiitfield, Mr. Justice Brown, and Mr. Justice Cpiapman are of the 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 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. 51, that *600the judgment 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
-
City OF Jacksonville v. Wilson, 157 Fla. 838 (Fla. 1946)…tled that a court of equity will not ordinarily relieve against criminal prosecutions no matter how often repeated; the arrested person being deemed to have an adequate remedy at law by habeas corpus or other proceeding. Stocks v. Lee, 144 Fla. 627, 198 So. 211. But even if this were not the general rule, the allegations of the bill on this phase of the controversy are not sufficiently clear and positive to warrant the issuance of an injunction. For while the bill of complaint charges that the plaintiff, C…
-
Bertram C. Ellison v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 166 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…general rule which we find controlling and the exceptions, held inapplicable, are set forth in numerous authorities some of which we cite without quoting. Jacksonville v. Wilson, 1946, 157 Fla. 838, 27 So. 2d 108; Stocks v. Lee, 1940, 144 Fla. 627, 198 So. 211; Ruff v. Fisher, 1934, 115 Fla. 247, 155 So. 642; Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 61 S.Ct. 962, 85 L.Ed 1416, 28 Am.Jur. Injunctions §§ 237, 241; Sweat v. Daley, 1934, 116 Fla. 755, 756, 156 So. 720; Blitch v. City of Ocala, 1940, 142 Fla. 612, 195 So…
-
Meristem Valley Nursery, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 428 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…tection, and that in order to constitute such a denial, selective enforcement must be deliberately based on an unjustifiable or arbitrary classification. Bell v. State, 369 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1979) and cases cited. See also Stocks v. Lee, 144 Fla. 627, 198 So. 211 (1940) (failure of authorities to enforce an ordinance against others constitutes no defense in favor of one who is prosecuted under such ordinance); City of Miami Beach v. Lincoln Investments, Inc., 214 So. 2d 496 (Fla.3d DCA 1968) (failure of gove…
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)