Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

106 Fla. 408

134 So 437

Ratliff v. Schenck

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided August 6, 1932

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1932-08-06

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1937

1 state decisions

Relies on State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1932-08-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Davis are of opinion that the decree of the Court below should -be affirmed while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice *409 Terrell are of opinion that the said decree should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, 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 o'f 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.

¶2 Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, and Davis, J.J., concur.
/106/fla/408 · .json · Public domain