¶1 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.
99 Fla. 627
127 So 305
Tippett v. Williams
Decided March 24, 1930
Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1930-03-24
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1931
1 state decisions
Relies on State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1930-03-24
View the full empirical analysis of this case →