Orders v. White, 137 So. 1 (Fla. 1931). · Go Syfert
Search
Orders v. White, 137 So. 1 (Fla. 1931). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: NICHOLAS SHECKLER v. MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2022-03-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." NICHOLAS SHECKLER v. MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Ves Carpenter Contractors, Inc., 422 So. 2d at 345; see also New Smyrna Inlet Dist. v. Esch, 137 So. 1, 4 (Fla. 1931) (explaining that “[w]here the levy of an illegal tax may become a cloud upon title to real estate, payment of the tax to avoid the cloud or to avoid the imposition of substantial burdens upon property rights of the owner is not a voluntary payment”); North Miami, 9 So. 2d at 706 (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
R. D. Orders, Plaintiff in Error vs. M. E. White, as Administrator of the Estate of Mrs. Louise E. White, Deceased, Defendant in Error
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct 14, 1931.
137 So. 1
E. W. R. C. Davis, and Philip D. Beall, for Plaintiff in Error; John M. Coe, for Defendant in Error.
PER CURIAM. —.
Published
Per Curiam.

In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the judgment herein should be reversed, conditioned on remittitur; while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Davis are of opinion that the said judgment should be affirmed. 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 judgment should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the judgment should be affirmed; therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51, that the judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.