# State Ex Rel. Board of Public Instruction v. Wood

> Supreme Court of Florida · October 6, 1929 · 140 Fla. 176

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3395733

## Case

- **Full name:** State Ex Rel. Board of Public Instruction, Dade County v. Hayes Wood, as Tax Collector for Dade County.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** October 6, 1929
- **Citations:** 140 Fla. 176; 191 So. 837
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum
- **Judges:** Whitfield, Brown, Thomas, Terrell, Buford, Compiled, Laws, Rules, Chapman
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3395733

## Opinion text

On Rehearing
Per Curiam. —
In this case petition for rehearing was filed on October 20, 1939, pursuant to the filing of an opinion and judgment herein on October 6.
The opinion shows upon its face that it was written by Mr. Justice Chapman and concurred in by Justices Whitfield and Brown, and was dissented to by Justice Thomas
*181
and that Mr. Chief Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Buford did not participate. The opinion was inadvertently filed in that condition. Rule 21-A of this Court had not been followed.
The petition for rehearing included ground Three, as follows:
“3. It is submitted that though under the divided Court rule the judgment of the lower court may be affirmed by the opinion and judgment of three Justices of our Supreme Court, yet it is not made to appear that the opinion and judgment sought to be reheard has been considered and rendered in conformity with Rule 21-A qf the Supreme Court of Florida; it appears affirmatively that the Justice of Division A of the Court to whom the opinion and judgment and record has been submitted did dissent, but nothing else required by said Rule 21-A appears to have been done.” And upon that ground the rehearing was granted.
The opinion as written has now been considered by each of the Justices of this Court and has been concurred in by a majority. Therefore, it stands as filed as of this date.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur. ■

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3395733. Public record. Not legal advice.