Johnson, Et Ux. v. Landefeld

189 So. 666, 138 Fla. 511
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 6, 1939·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

In this cause Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed while Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the said decree should be affirmed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consideration, 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. R. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is, hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

*Page 513

TERRELL, C. J., and WHITFIELD, BROWN, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, J. J., concur.

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

Johnson, Et Ux. v. Landefeld, 189 So. 666, 138 Fla. 511 (Fla. 1939).

189 So. 666 (Johnson, Et Ux. v. Landefeld) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ratinska v. Estate of Denesuk
447 So. 2d 241 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Wadsworth
346 So. 2d 1004 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1977)
ITT RAYONIER INCORPORATED v. Wadsworth
386 F. Supp. 940 (M.D. Florida, 1975)
Schuler v. Claughton
248 F.2d 528 (Fifth Circuit, 1957)
Cleaver v. Long
69 Ohio Law. Abs. 488 (Licking County Court of Common Pleas, 1955)
Roberts v. Commissioner
8 T.C.M. 60 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)
Stuehm v. Mikulski
297 N.W. 595 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1941)