TOWN OF MADISON
v.
ETHEL HOPKINS
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 justices were equally divided on whether to reverse or affirm the judgment. This equal division resulted in an affirmance under court rules.
When the members of the Supreme Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the Court's 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 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 involved an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. The specific facts leading to the appeal are not detailed in this per curiam opinion. The co…
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 Ellis, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed while Mr. Justice Wi-iitfield, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Chapman, are of the oinion that the said 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 decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, *788the 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.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
On Rehearing.
— Upon rehearing of this case Mr.. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Thomas are of the opinion that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and Mr. Justice Wi-iitfield, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Ci-iapman are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed; therefore, it is ordered, considered and adjudged, under the authority of State, ex rel. Hampton, v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
On Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
— Upon rehearing of this case Mr.. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Thomas are of the opinion that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and Mr. Justice Wi-iitfield, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Ci-iapman are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed; therefore, it is ordered, considered and adjudged, under the authority of State, ex rel. Hampton, v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, 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)