ROBERT BROOKS, ALIAS ROBERT ANDERSON, ALIAS FRANK ANDERSON,
v.
STATE
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 affirm or reverse, a situation where the court's precedent dictates affirmation.
The decree of the circuit court should be affirmed when the Supreme Court justices are permanently and equally divided in opinion, with no prospect of an immediate change in the Court's personnel.
“When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full con [*355] sultation 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 due to the equal division among the justices.
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 came before the Florida Supreme Court for review of a circuit court decree. The court's six justices were equally divided in their opinions r…
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, and Mr- Justice Brown are of the opinion that the decree in this cause should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Wi-iitfield, Mr. Justice Ci-iapman, and Mr. Justice Thomas are of the opinion that the said decree should be affirmed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full con*355sultation 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; therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51, that the decree of the circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., Wi-iitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. City OF Lake Worth, 156 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1945)…Worth. It appears that the law applicable to this matter has been determined adversely to the contention of the appellants in Bice v. Haynes City, 142 Fla. 371, 195 Sou. 919, and Carlile v. Melbourne-Tillman Drainage District, et al., 143 Fla. 355, 196 Sou. 687. See also Prince Hall Masonic Bldg. v. City of Jacksonville 149 Fla. 109, 6 So. (2nd) 250. It must be borne in mind that the title claimed by appellants did not result from a foreclosure suit in which the [*455] State’s lien for taxes was foreclose…
-
Trs. of Internal Improvement Fund of Fla. v. Sw. Tampa Storm Sewer Drainage Dist., 142 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1944)…gal title under the Murphy Act. See opinion on rehearing, 6 So. 2d 255. Therefore, the State had no tax liens on the lands which it acquired under the Murphy Act. That Court also held, in Carlile v. Melbourne-Tillman Drainage District, 143 Fla. 355, 196 So. 687, that the title to land in a drainage district acquired under the Murphy Act went to the State, subject to, and burdened with, the lien of drainage district taxes, citing as authority Bice v. Haines City, 142 Fla. 371, 195 So. 919. See also Baldwin…
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)