MARY MILLER, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LEWIS V. MOSS, ALSO KNOWN AS L. V. MOSS, DECEASED, APPELLANT.

v.

EMMA WILLIAMS, ALSO KNOWN AS EMMA MOSS, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Ashford v. State, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1973)
  …dence of the information contained therein, and therefore inadmissible. It is well established that this Court will not consider issues not presented to the trial court unless fundamental error can be shown. Clark v. Osceola Clay & Top Soil Company, 99 So. 2d 869 (Fla.1958). Ashford admits that the issue was not raised before the trial court, but urges that the use of the report by the prosecutor constituted fundamental error. In considering the issue, this Court has said: “ ‘Fundamental error,” which can…
• In re Est. of Anna Z. Kionka v. Ziegler, 121 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1960)
  …nvolves the power of an appellate court to consider fundamental error when raised for the first, time on appeal. This court has recognized that such may be done. Love v. Hannah, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 39; Clark v. Osceola Clay & Top Soil Co., Fla.1958, 99 So. 2d 869; and F.A.R. 3.7(i), 31 F.S.A., support this doctrine. This court has specifically considered the validity of a statute although such question was not raised in the trial court which rendered the judgment under review. Parker v. Town of Callahan, 193…
• Marinelli v. Weaver, 187 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
  …reiterated the foregoing rule, but further observed that “one well recognized exception is that error affecting fundamental rights may be raised for the first time on appeal.” See also the headnote in Clark v. Osceola Clay & Top Soil Co., Fla. 1957, 99 So. 2d 869.5 We are also cognizant of Rule 3.7, subd. i, Fla.App. Rules, 31 F.S.A., which provides inter alia that “[t]he Court, in the interest of justice, [*694] may notice jurisdiction or fundamental error apparent in the record-on-appeal, whether or not it…