C. A. ROUTH, IRENE G. ROUTH, HIS WIFE, AND ROUTH INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
ENOCH C. RICHARDS, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a foreclosure proceeding's final decree, finding that the alleged technical errors did not result in a miscarriage of justice and would not benefit the appellants if the case were remanded.
No, technical errors that do not result in a miscarriage of justice and would not change the ultimate outcome of the case do not warrant reversal.
“Such decree has been appealed from and. alleged errors as to practice and procedure have been argued as grounds for reversal.”
Describes the basis of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a foreclosure proceeding where a final decree was entered against the defendants. The defendants appealed, citing alleged errors in…
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 Miscarriage Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a foreclosure proceeding in which a final decree was rendered on the merits against the defendants in the court below. Such decree has been appealed from and. alleged errors as to practice and procedure have been argued as grounds for reversal.
The alleged errors complained of are at most wholly technical in character, and the rulings of the court with regard thereto do not appear to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice, nor does it appear that a reversal for the errors complained of would prove effectual and of benefit to the appellants, because the same result as that evidenced by the final decree of the chancellor herein appealed from must inevitably be reached a second time if the cause is reversed and remánded and the alleged technical errors argued and insisted upon are avoided on further proceedings.
This being true, the' final decree appealed from should be affirmed on the authority of Small v. Colonial Investment Co., 92 Fla. 503, 109 Sou. Rep. 433.
Decree affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinon and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Special v. Ivo Baux, M.D., 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ed any other verdict than that which was returned.”). . Other civil cases applying the outcome oriented analysis are Rance v. Hutchinson, 131 Fla. 460, 179 So. 777, 780 (1938); Herman v. Peacock, 103 Fla. 438, 137 So. 704 (1931); Routh v. Richards, 103 Fla. 757, 138 So. 72 (1931). . See also Josey v. Futch, 254 So. 2d 786, 787 (Fla.1971) (following Stecher) ("[T]he essential consideration is evidence of influence on the jury....”). . In 1985, the year before DiGuilio, Justice Overton noted that the Flori…
-
Saffold Bros. Produce Co. v. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co., 111 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1933)…uth. Rep. 415; Theisen v. Whiddon, 60 Fla. 372, 53 South. Rep. 642; Shad v. Smith, 74 Fla. 324, 76 South. Rep. 897; Guggenheimer v. Davidson, 74 Fla. 485, 77 South. Rep. 266; Sandlin v. Hunter Co., 70 Fla. 514, 70 South. Rep. 533; Routh v. Richards, 103 Fla. 757, 138 South. Rep. 72; Heinisch v. Mills, 100 Fla. 1600, 132 South. Rep. 109; Lesnoff v. Becker, 101 Fla. 716, 135 South. Rep. 146; Empire Lumber Co. v. Morris, 102 Fla. 226, 135 South. Rep. 508. In this view of the case the decree is affirmed. Davi…
-
Montague Fred Rayne v. The Wackenhut Corp., 169 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…ence of the plaintiff, the chancellor was of the opinion that good cause for the discharge had been shown. Under these circumstances it would be a waste of judicial labor to take further testimony from the defendant on this issue. Routh v. Richards, 103 Fla. 757, 138 So. 72. Appellant’s second point presents a question as to whether, under the testimony presented and the allegations of his complaint, he was entitled to an accounting from the corporation as to the business done in his former territory of Pu…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rosanna Small v. Colonial Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 503 (Fla. 1926)