Tippett v. Williams

127 So. 305, 99 Fla. 627
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 24, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 So. 305 (Tippett v. Williams) 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
Tippett v. Williams, 127 So. 305, 99 Fla. 627 (Fla. 1930).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause coming on to be heard upon motion of counsel for. relator for a peremptory 0writ of mandamus and same having been duly considered upon briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the motion for peremptory writ of mandamus should be denied while Mr. Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the said motion should be granted. When it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether a motion should be granted or denied, and there is no prospect of -an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the motion should be denied. Therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that the motion for a peremptory writ-of mandamus in this cause be and the same is hereby denied on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J.-, concur.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Edwards v. Tippett
134 So. 52 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 So. 305, 99 Fla. 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tippett-v-williams-fla-1930.