JAMES W. ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AUTO RECYCLERS, ORLANDO AUTO RECYCLERS AND HELLO MOTORS, APPELLANTS,
v.
LEE ALBERT, 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 First District Court of Appeal struck appellants' second amended initial brief for failure to comply with Florida Appellate Rule 9.210(b)(1) by not listing the issues for review in the table of contents. The court emphasized that merely numbering issues (Issue I, Issue II, etc.) without stating the actual issues does not satisfy the rule's requirements.
The appellants' second amended initial brief did not comply with the rule because it failed to state the actual issues for review in the table of contents, merely listing 'issues for review' as a heading with page references instead. The brief was stricken, and appellants were given 10 days to file a third amended brief in compliance with the rule.
[1] An appellate court may strike a brief for failure to list the issues for review in the table of contents, as required by Rule 9.210(b)(1).
[2] A table of contents listing only the numbers of issues for review, without stating the issues themselves, does not comply with appellate rules.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Listing the issue for review necessarily includes a statement of the issue. It does not mean, as this court often sees in briefs, simply stating Issue I, Issue II, Issue III, etc. That is not a listing of the issues, but a listing of the numbers of the issues.”
Establishes that the rule requires substantive statement of issues, not mere numbering or generic labeling
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson and related entities filed an initial brief that failed to list issues for review in the table of contents and omitted the lower tribunal's n…
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.
PER CURIAM.
On the court’s own motion, we strike appellants’ second amended initial brief for failure to list in the table of contents the issues for review. Fla.RApp.P. 9.210(b)(1).
Appellants filed an initial brief which was deficient in two respects. The table of contents did not list the issues for review, in violation of Rule 9.210(b)(1) and the cover page did not state the name of the lower tribunal in violation of Rule 9.210(a)(4). As part of this court’s regular screening process, the court issued an order to show cause why the brief should not be stricken for failure to comply with those rules. Appellants were given the alternative of filing an amended brief which complied with the rules. Appellants filed an amended initial brief. That brief corrected the problem of the omission of the name of the lower tribunal from the cover page. However, the amended brief still did not list the issues for review in the table of contents. The court issued another show cause order. Appellants filed a second amended initial brief which still did not list the issues for review in the table of contents, although there is listed in the table of contents the statement “issues for review” and a reference to two page numbers.
Listing the issue for review necessarily includes a statement of the issue. It does not mean, as this court often sees in briefs, simply stating Issue I, Issue II, Issue III, etc. That is not a listing of the issues, but a listing of the numbers of the issues. Listing the issues is not a make work project for attorneys. Because of this court’s heavy case load, considerable staff time is devoted to screening briefs for a number of reasons. For example, briefs are screened to: ensure that they comply with the rules of appellate procedure; identify cases which are entitled to expedited processing; identify cases appropriate for summary affirmance pursuant to Rule 9.315(a); and, identify cases which have related or identical issues. Much of that screening depends on having the issues listed in the table of contents. The failure to have the issues listed greatly increases the amount of time necessary to conduct a proper screening. For that reason, this court routinely strikes briefs which do not have the issues for review listed in the table of contents.
Accordingly, appellants’ second amended initial brief is stricken. Appellants shall have 10 days from the date of this order to file a third amended initial brief which complies with Rule 9.210.
ZEHMER, C.J., and JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.