State ex rel. Marden v. Chastain

207 So. 2d 6
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 14, 1968
DocketNo. 36371
StatusPublished

This text of 207 So. 2d 6 (State ex rel. Marden v. Chastain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Marden v. Chastain, 207 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari because of an apparent conflict between the instant decision and the decision of this Court in State ex rel. York v. Beckham, 160 Fla. 810, 36 So.2d 769 (1948). We initially felt that it would be necessary to consider the case at bar in view of apparently conflicting holdings in Beckham and our later decision in In re Rouse, 66 So.2d 42 (Fla.1951). See Billingham v. Thiele, 109 So.2d 763 (Fla.1959). We have now concluded that Beckham and Rouse are reconcilable and it is not necessary to accept one and reject the other. We therefore find that the instant writ was improvidently granted and that it should be discharged on the authority of In re Rouse, supra.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., DREW, THOR-NAL and ERVIN, JJ., and WHITE, Circuit Judge (Retired), concur.

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

Related

In Re Rouse
66 So. 2d 42 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)
Billingham v. Thiele
109 So. 2d 763 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1959)
State Ex Rel. York v. Beckham
36 So. 2d 769 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 So. 2d 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-marden-v-chastain-fla-1968.