WM. G. ROE & COMPANY
v.
J. FRED ARCHER

Fla. | 1939-12-05
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur., Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment., Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
140 Fla. 841 Florida Supreme Court (1939) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 192 So. 402
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam. —

Per Curiam. —

The only question presented in this case is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. An examination of the record convinces us there was no reversible error; therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

So ordered.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.

Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Snipes v. State, 154 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1944)
    …meditated design or intent to kill. See Richardson v. State, 80 Fla. 634; 86 So. 619; Smithie v. State, 84 Fla. 498, 94 So. 156; Forehand v. State, 126 Fla. 434, 171 So. 241; Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223; Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 825, 192 So. 402; Douglas v. State, supra. Section 924.34, Fla. Stats. 1941, confers upon the Supreme Court of Florida the power to reverse on appeal the judgment of the trial court, with directions to enter judgment for such lesser degree of offense (which can or…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw