Hines v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Hines v. State

195 So. 160, 142 Fla. 517, 1940 Fla. LEXIS 1403

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 29, 1940·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have carefully examined the record in this case and no reversible error has clearly appeared to us, therefore, the judgment is—

Affirmed.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We have carefully examined the record in this case and no reversible error has clearly appeared to us, therefore, the judgment is—

Affirmed.

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

Hines v. State, 195 So. 160, 142 Fla. 517, 1940 Fla. LEXIS 1403 (Fla. 1940).

Pincite

195 So. 160 (Hines v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related