Frankel v. Deidesheimer

Decided January 22, 1892

California Supreme Court · decided 1892-01-22

<p>Appeal — Equal Division of Opinion — Affirmance of Judsment.— Where one of the judges of the supreme court is disqualified from participating in the decision of a case submitted to them, and the rest of the judges, after repeated consultations, are equally divided in their opinion as to whether or not the case should be reversed, and there is no probability of an immediate change in the personnel of the court, the judgment will be affirmed.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1904

3 state decisions

Relies on Luco v. De Toro

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-01-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court.

¶1— This cause has been long pending in this court, and has been reargued twice. One of the justices is disqualified from participating in its decision, and of the six other justices three are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and three are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Repeated consultations have ended in the same disagreement, and there is no probability of any change in the opinions of those now constituting the court, or of any immediate change in the personnel of the court. Under these circumstances we think that the judgment should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in Luco v. De Toro, 88 Cal. 26.

¶2The judgment and order are affirmed.

¶3Mr. Justice Harrison, being disqualified, did not participate in the foregoing.