Atkins v. State, 63 So. 440 (Fla. 1913). · Go Syfert
Search
Atkins v. State, 63 So. 440 (Fla. 1913). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State Attorneys for the Second, Seventh and Ninth Judicial Circuits v. Florida Pace Funding Agency, Etc.; Alachua County Tax Collector v. Florida Pace Funding Agency; Palm Beach County, Florida v. Florida Pace Funding Agency; Alachua County, Florida v. Florida Pace Funding Agency (fla, 2025-12-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1914 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1914 1970 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Attorneys for the Second, Seventh and Ninth Judicial Circuits v. Florida Pace Funding Agency, Etc.; Alachua County Tax Collector v. Florida Pace Funding Agency; Palm Beach County, Florida v. Florida Pace Funding Agency; Alachua County, Florida v. Florida Pace Funding Agency (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Palm Beach v. State, 111 So. 640, 640 (Fla. 1927), and “not known to the common law,” City of Miami v. Romfh, 63 So. 440, 442 (Fla. 1913).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tampa-Hillsborough Cty. Expressway Auth. v. KE MORRIS ALIGN. SERVICE, INC.
Fla. · 1983 · confidence medium
"An interpretation of the language of a statute that leads to absurd consequences should not be adopted when, considered as a whole, the statute is fairly subject to another construction that will aid in accomplishing the manifest intent and the purposes designed." City of Miami v. Romfh, 66 Fla. 280, 285 , 63 So. 440, 442 (1913).
cited Cited "see" City of Daytona Beach v. Civil Service Board of Daytona Beach
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Miami v. Romfh, 66 Fla. 280 , 63 So. 440 ; Johnson v. State, Fla. 91 So.2d 185 .
cited Cited "see" Lasseter v. State ex rel. Hallowes
Fla. · 1914 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Miami v. Romfh, 63 South.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Atkins, in Error
v.
The State of Florida, in Error
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov 4, 1913.
63 So. 440
W. G. Hodges, and Francis B. Winthrop, for Plaintiff in Error;, T. F. West, Attorney General, and G. O. Andrews, Assistant, for the State.
Cockrell, Hocker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Shackleford, C. J.

William Atkins was convicted of the statutory offense of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age and sentenced to confinement in the State Prison for the period of one year. This judgment and sentence he seeks to have reviewed here by writ of error.

The sole assignment urged before us is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, which questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We find from the transcript that, while there are conflicts in the testimony, there is ample testimony to warrant a conviction and there is nothing whatever to show that the jurors were not. governed by the evidence in arriving at their verdict. Applying the test, which we have admitted and applied in a number of cases, as to whether[*234] or not the jurors acting as reasonable men could have found the verdict, we find that this question must be answered in the affirmative. See Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 South. Rep. 120, and cases there cited. Also see McClellan v. State, decided here at the present term.

Judgment affirmed.

Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.