GLENN SWICEGOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an appeal may be dismissed for flagrant disregard of appellate rules, especially when no explanation for noncompliance is provided after an opportunity to do so.
Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal because appellant failed to timely serve its initial brief and did not request an extension. Appellant responded …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Rules Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On October 3, 1980, appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that appellant’s initial brief should have been served on or before July 25,1980, had not been served, and no extensions of time had been granted or requested. We issued an order directing appellant to show cause within ten (10) days why appellee’s motion should not be granted. The response, which was filed after the ten-day time limit had expired, is as follows:
Appellant requests that this Court deny the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal in that the delay is in no part attributable to Appellant. The Appeal was taken in good faith and is not frivolous, but to the contrary, with substantial basis. Furthermore, no parties have been prejudiced by the delay.
Appellee replied to the response stating that “[ajppellant’s failure to offer any explanation for its failure to timely prosecute this appeal or seek an extension of time warrants dismissal”. We agree.
Although we have been reluctant to dismiss an appeal solely for failure to comply with the appellate rules, where there has been a flagrant disregard of the rules and appellant has been afforded an opportunity to explain the reasons for noncompliance but does not do so, dismissal is justified. Winstead v. Adams, 363 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1 DCA 1978); Akin v. Harvey, 283 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1 DCA 1973).
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
MILLS, C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lindsey v. Merrill King and Priscilla King, 894 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ommensurate with the violation. Dismissal is an extreme sanction and, as such, it is reserved for the most flagrant violations of the appellate rules.” Irvin v. Williams, 736 So. 2d 705, 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (citing Swicegood v. Dep’t of Transp., 394 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)). Generally, appellate courts are reluctant to impose the harsh sanction of dismissal, as it results in “ ‘the sins of the attorney beihg visited upon the client.’ ” Hastings, 640 So. 2d at 116 (quoting Moose v. State, 519 So. 2d…
-
Gillespie v. The City OF Destin, 946 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that dismissal was proper because counsel had continually failed to prosecute his client’s appeals timely, despite reprimands by the court and the imposition of monetary sanctions); Swicegood v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 394 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that dismissal was proper because counsel had failed to file a brief, failed to request an extension of time, and failed to explain his conduct in response to the court’s order to show cause). Public policy in Flor…
-
Irvin v. Jimmie (Jamey) Williams, 736 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…f the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure must be commensurate with the violation. Dismissal is an extreme sanction and, as such, it is reserved for the most flagrant violations of the appellate rules. See Swicegood v. Department of Transportation, 394 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that dismissal was proper because counsel had failed to file a brief, failed to request an extension of time, and failed to explain his conduct in response to an order of the court); McClain v. Florida Power & Light Co.,…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winstead v. Adams, 363 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Parepa Akin v. Harvey, 283 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)