Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Department of Revenue of Fla.
Headline: Split Court affirms Florida appeals court judgment in tax dispute between Ford Motor Credit Company and the State Department of Revenue, leaving the lower-court decision in place.
Holding:
- Leaves the Florida appeals court judgment in place for this dispute.
- Affects Ford Motor Credit Company and the State Department of Revenue.
- Business and tax groups filed briefs urging reversal.
Summary
Background
This case involved Ford Motor Credit Company and the State Department of Revenue of Florida. The matter arrived at the Supreme Court as an appeal from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. The case was argued on November 6, 1990, and the Court issued its ruling on May 20, 1991.
Reasoning
The opinion text does not describe the underlying facts or legal issues in detail. The Supreme Court issued a short per curiam (unsigned) statement: "The judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, is affirmed by an equally divided Court." That statement is the entirety of the Court’s action in the text provided; the opinion contains no separate majority explanation or reasoning.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is that the Florida appeals court’s judgment remains in place for this dispute between the company and the State Department of Revenue. The one-line order shows the Justices were evenly split, and Justice O’Connor did not participate in the decision. The opinion text does not announce any broader legal rule or reasoning that would apply beyond this case.
Dissents or concurrances
The opinion notes that Justice O’Connor took no part in the decision. The text also records amicus briefs urging reversal filed by the Committee on State Taxation and by Caterpillar Inc. and others.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?