MARION CLARKE AND J. O. CLARKE, PLAINTIFFS, IN ERROR,
v.
THE SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 lower court's judgment because the appealing party failed to file a brief or argue the case, leading the court to consider the assigned errors abandoned. This case highlights the procedural requirement for appellants to actively pursue their appeals.
Yes, assigned errors are considered abandoned and the judgment is affirmed when the appellant fails to file a brief or argue the case.
“There has been an entire failure of counsel for plaintiffs in error to file any brief or argue this cause before "the court, and the errors assigned must be considered as totally abandoned.”
This quote establishes the core factual basis for the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued the Southern Express Company and obtained a verdict and judgment in their favor in the Circuit Court. The plaintiffs appealed this jud…
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 Failure To Prosecute Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Mabby, J.:
In April, 1885, plaintiffs in error sued defendant in error in the Marion county Circuit Court, and a trial •of the cause, at the Spring term, 1889, resulted in a" verdict and judgment for the defendant. A writ of •error was taken from the judgment to this court, the transcript being filed June 14, 1889, and the assignment of errors filed January, 80, 1890. On June 10th, 1890, the cause was submitted to the court on brief of counsel for defendant in error without prejudice to the right of counsel for plaintiffs in error to be heard during a subsequent day of that term of the •court.
There has been an entire failure of counsel for plaintiffs in error to file any brief or argue this cause before "the court, and the errors assigned must be considered as totally abandoned. This court has repeatedly held that errors assigned and not argued here will be treated as abandoned and not considered.
Therefore the judgment of this courtis that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, ¿nd an order will be entered accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1903)…th. Rep. 686; Blount v. State, 30 Fla. 287, 11 South. Rep. 547; McCall v. State, 31 Fla. 218, 12 South. Rep. 845; Albritton v. State, 32 Fla. 358, 13 South. Rep. 955; Everett v. State, 33 Fla. 661, 15 South. Rep. 543; Clarke v. Southern Express Co., 33 Fla. 617, 15 South. Rep. 252; Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. Griffin, 33 Fla. 602, 15 South. Rep. 336; Armstrong, Cator & Co. v. Glenn, 34 Fla. 387, 16 South. Rep. 279; Hayes v. Todd, 34 Fla. 233, 15 South. Rep. 752; Lambright v. State, 34 Fla. 564, 16…
-
Mercer v. State, 40 Fla. 216 (Fla. 1898)…nton v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 South. Rep. 182. The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth assignments of error are abandoned here by non-presentation, and will, therefore, not be noticed, according to the established rule. Clark v. Southern Express Co., 33 Fla. 617, 15 South. Rep. 252; Blount v. State, 30 Fla. 287, 11 South. Rep. 547. Upon the cross-examination of J. E. Brock, one of the State’s witnesses, a letter written by him to his wife was exhibited to him by the attorneys for the defendants, and he was…
-
Hayes v. Todd, 34 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1894)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence