Quigg v. Radel

97 So. 380, 86 Fla. 197
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 19, 1923·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Browne are of opinion that the final order herein, discharging the petitioner in habeas corpus proceedings, should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice West and Mr. Justice Terrell are of opinion that the final order' should be reversed; and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South Rep. 51, and Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452.

An order will be entered affirming the final order to which the writ of error herein was taken.

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

Quigg v. Radel, 97 So. 380, 86 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1923).

97 So. 380 (Quigg v. Radel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National City Bank v. Beulah Baptist Institutional Church
122 So. 274 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Butler v. Jones
118 So. 684 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Jackson v. State
113 So. 382 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Cravatt v. Pierson
113 So. 94 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Johns and Ellzey v. Wilkerson
112 So. 891 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Broaddus v. Theurer
111 So. 110 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1926)
Yarnell v. Gregory
101 So. 37 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Colman v. Macha
100 So. 796 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
James v. Mach
100 So. 271 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Graham v. Randall
99 So. 559 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Auerback v. Cowart
87 Fla. 138 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey
100 So. 796 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Meier v. State
99 So. 124 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)