KERR MCGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS LIPFORD AND RONALD LIPFORD, APPELLEES
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 discharged an order to show cause for contempt but publicly reprimanded counsel for procedural delays and failure to comply with appellate rules. The motion to dismiss was denied, but the appeal's fate depends on timely supplementation of the record.
Appellant's counsel failed to timely serve an initial brief, over two months late, prompting a motion to dismiss. Counsel cited delays in receiving tr…
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 Sanctions For Procedural Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This Court’s Order of December 3, 1980, directing H. Guy Green, Esquire, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt is discharged. However, we do not condone Mr. Green’s failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, specifically his failure to serve an initial brief until it was over two months late and only after appellee had filed a motion to dismiss based on appellant’s disregard of the appellate rules.
Mr. Green states that the problem was “an unusual delay in receiving the transcripts from the trial”. However, it is appellant’s duty to ensure that the record is properly prepared and transmitted. Rule 9.200(e), Fla.R.App.P. Further, the trial transcript is not included in the record on appeal transmitted to this Court and Mr. Green has not moved to supplement the record with the transcript.
H. Guy Green, Esquire, is hereby publicly reprimanded for his failure to properly conduct the prosecution of this appeal. However, since dismissal is a harsh sanction which is to be used sparingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss is denied. Winstead v. Adams, 363 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1 DCA 1978).
Appellant shall have thirty (30) days to supplement the record on appeal with the trial transcript. Rule 9.200(f), Fla.R.App.P. If the supplemental record is transmitted within that time, this appeal will be determined on its merits; if it is not, the appeal will be dismissed.
MILLS, C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krebs v. State, 588 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…acious disregard of a court's orders. See, e.g., Bixby v. Bixby, 546 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 504 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Caudle v. State, 478 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Kerr McGee Chemical Corp. v. Lipford, 395 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Here, Krebs’ appellate counsel filed the initial brief late, the only violation. We are reluctant to interfere with the lower tribunal’s judgment of sanctions appropriate to redress a violation of the rules, especially where, a…
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Total Rehab & Med. Ctr., 870 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…7); Hastings v. State, 640 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Craig v. Preston, 593 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Krebs v. State, 588 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Moose v. State, 519 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Kerr McGee Chemical Corp. v. Lipford, 395 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); cf. McClain v. Florida Power & Light Co., 523 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (persistent violations and failure to respond to court orders; appeal dismissed); Swicegood v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 394 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Winstead v. Adams, 363 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)