State Ex Rel. Fohl v. Karel

180 So. 3, 131 Fla. 305
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 28, 1937·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 307 In this Habeas Corpus proceeding Mr. Chief Justice ELLIS, Mr. Justice TERRELL and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of the opinion that the affidavit and warrant under which Petitioner is held failed to allege a criminal offense and that therefore the Petitioner should be discharged from custody, while Mr. Justice WHITFIELD, Mr. Justice BROWN and Mr. Justice BUFORD are of a contrary opinion and think the Petitioner should be remanded to the custody of the Respondent. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consideration, are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the Petitioner should be discharged or remanded and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the Petitioner must be remanded to the custody of the Respondent and it is so ordered in this cause.

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

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

State Ex Rel. Fohl v. Karel, 180 So. 3, 131 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1937).

180 So. 3 (State Ex Rel. Fohl v. Karel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D & L HARROD, INC. v. US Precast Corp.
322 So. 2d 630 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Dade County v. Palladeno
303 So. 2d 692 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Driver's Dispatch, Inc. v. Florida Railroad & Public Utilities Commission
166 So. 2d 899 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Coleman v. City of Pensacola
15 Fla. Supp. 91 (Escambia County Circuit Court, 1959)
State ex rel. Florida Railroad & Public Utilities Commission v. Ingalls
106 So. 2d 570 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)
Lowe v. Public Service Commission
210 P.2d 558 (Utah Supreme Court, 1949)