Kelliher v. City of Tampa, 132 So. 198 (Fla. 1931). · Go Syfert
Search
Kelliher v. City of Tampa, 132 So. 198 (Fla. 1931). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bacardi v. Lindzon (fla, 2002-02-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bacardi v. Lindzon
Fla. · 2002 · confidence medium
As this Court long ago explained: "For separate and distinct wrongs, not connected by the ligament of a common purpose, actual or implied by law, the wrongdoers are liable only in separate actions and not jointly in the same action." Smith v. Coleman, 100 Fla. 1707 , 132 So. 198, 200 (1931).
discussed Cited "see" President & Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes
D.C. Cir. · 1942 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Coleman, 1931, 100 Fla. 1707 , 132 So. 198 ; 29 Mich.L.Rev. 1102; In re Raybould, [1900] 1 Ch. 199; Miller v. Smythe, 1893, 92 Ga. 154 , 18 S.E. 46 ; Carey v. Squire, 1939, 63 Ohio App. 476 , 27 N.E.2d 175 ; Ewing v. Wm.
cited Cited "see" McDougald v. Couey
Fla. · 1941 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith *694 v. Coleman, 100 Fla. 1707 , 132 So. 198 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schumann v. Weathers
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Smith v. Coleman, 100 Fla. 1707 , 132 So. 198 (1931) (recognizing general rule of non-liability, but applying exception applicable in cases where trustee is charged with duty of carrying on business). .
Euphemia L. Kelliher, Joined by Her Husband Patrick F. Kelliher, Appellants,
v.
City of Tampa, a Municipal Corporation; Stone & Webster, Inc., a Corporation, Davis Islands, Inc., a Corporation; And Tampa Sand & Shell Company, a Corporation, Appellees
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan 12, 1931.
132 So. 198
Palmer, Dickenson, Shurley Lake, for Appellants; Mabry, Reaves Carlton, for Appellees.
Terrell, Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown, Buford.
Published
Per Curiam.

In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of opinion that the order appealed from should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the said order should be reversed. When- it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and evenly divided in opinion as to whether an order should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of - an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the order should be affirmed. Therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the[*1697] Court under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 34 So. R. 51, that the order of the circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.

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