Court Opinion

ID: 9686376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:45:26.681218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:57.584392
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice
(dissenting from refusal to grant rehearing and from filing of Per Curiam).
The per curiam filed in response to this application for rehearing does not reflect the majority view of this court. The majority, with Mr. Justice Hamlin as the author of the opinion, clearly stated that future earnings, medical expenses, etc., should be the separate property of the husband. Two of us dissenting believed the majority erred in failing to remand to determine these items of damage so that a proper partition of the tort settlement could be obtained.
It is well to caution the courts that the per curiam here filed, when read with the majority and dissenting opinions, will clearly indicate the diversity of view of this court, and that the per curiam is not a majority view. A blind following of the per curiam by trial and appellate courts will in my opinion lead to injustice and very likely to reversal by this court on certiorari. A weak majority has tried to consolidate a view which I do not believe will obtain in future cases. I respectfully dissent from the refusal to grant a rehearing. I strongly dissent from the per curiam which does not -represent' a majority view of this court.