DALLAS J. GRAHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
MAMMIE THORNTON, SOLE HEIR OF LIZZIE L. DANIELS, A WIDOW, 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 appellate court dismissed Graham's appeal for failure to timely file his brief in violation of the Florida Appellate Rules. Graham filed his brief after the deadline and only then requested a nunc pro tunc extension, which the court denied for lack of good cause.
The court denied the extension motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that Graham failed to comply with the appellate rules, made no timely request for extension, and showed no good cause for belated relief.
“Upon consideration of the foregoing it becomes apparent that appellant has failed to comply with the rules of this court governing the time for filing and serving briefs; that no request for an extension of such time was filed prior to the expiration of the time allowed by the rules; and that no good cause has been shown for the entry of an order of extension at this stage in the proceedings.”
Establishes the court's holding that strict compliance with filing deadlines is required and that seeking extension after the deadline has expired without good cause is insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraham's Notice of Appeal was filed on February 28, 1958. The record-on-appeal was due by June 18, 1958, which meant Graham's brief had to be filed by…
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 Timeliness Of Appellate Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is now before the court on appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal' herein for appellant’s failure to file his-brief within the time required.
The Notice of Appeal was filed on February 28, 1958. Under 31 F.S.A. Rule 3.6, subd. j (1), Florida Appellate Rules, the record-on-appeal was due in this court 110 days after the notice of appeal was filed, or by June 18, 1958.
Rule 3.7, subd. a requires that appellant’s main brief be filed and served at least 40 days before the date on which the record-on-appeal is required to be filed in the appellate court. It therefore becomes necessary, absent an extension of time as provided by Rule 3.7, subd. d, F.A.R., that appellant’s brief and appendix be filed and served not later than May 9, 1958. This was not done and appellee filed her motion to dismiss the appeal on May 28, 1958.
After appellee filed her motion to dismiss and prior to the hearing thereon, appellant moved the court for an order, nunc pro tunc, extending the time for filing his *96brief to June 9, 1958. In support of his motion appellant’s counsel represents that the default was due to a' miscalculation of time on his part. In addition, appellant’s counsel submitted an affidavit by his secretary to the effect that on several occasions during April and May of 1958, the affiant telepnoned the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Duval County and was informed by some unidentified person there that the record herein had not been completed; that on May 15, 1958, she was advised of its completion and thereupon immediately dispatched a check covering the cost of preparation and secured the record. In opposition to appellant’s motion for extension of time, and in support of her motion to dismiss, appellee filed an affidavit by a Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Duval County in which the affiant asserts that the record-on-appeal in this cause was completed on the 24th day of March, 1958; that she, personally, so notified appellant’s counsel on that date; but, that no attempt was' made to obtain it until May 15, 1958. Appellant’s brief was deposited with the Clerk of this court on June 17, 1958, the date on which appellee’s motion was heard. The record has not been filed.
Upon consideration of the foregoing it becomes apparent that appellant has failed to comply with the rules of this court governing the time for filing and serving briefs; that no request for an extension of such time was filed prior to the expiration of the time allowed by the rules; and that no good cause has been shown for the entry of an order of extension at this stage in the proceedings.1
Accordingly, appellant’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted and the appeal dismissed.
STURGIS, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD, K., and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schneider v. Gustafson Indus., Inc., 139 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1962)…ecisions under current F.A.R. 3.6, 31 F.S.A. are not conclusive on the point of strict compliance with its time provisions. See Ward v. Fountain, Fla.App., 122 So. 2d 209, relied upon by the Commission in this ease; Graham v. Thornton, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 95; Nitsos v. Carlisle, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 144; Axtell v. Lyons, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 610. . Fagan v. Robbins (1928), 96 Fla. 91, 117 So. 863; Reid v. Southern Dev. Co. (1906), 52 Fla. 595, 42 So. 206. . 30 Fla.Jur. 98, Statutes Sec. 6, cit…
-
Nitsos v. Carlisle, 104 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…going rules. The ground of appellant’s motion for extension of time is that an error occurred in his office and the time schedule for perfecting this appeal was completely off. For the reasons stated by this court in the case of Graham v. Thornton, 104 So. 2d 95, appellant’s motion for extension of time is denied and appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
-
The Carter Corp. v. The Albanese Co., Inc., 177 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…of the rules of appellate procedure and must be considered to have abandoned this appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal is accordingly granted and the appeal should stand dismissed at the cost of appellant. See Graham v. Thornton, (Fla.App.1958), 104 So. 2d 95; Nitsos v. Carlisle, (Fla.App. 1958) 104 So. 2d 144. WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farmer v. State, 104 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Eidson v. State, 101 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Rhoton v. State, 101 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)