JOHN NITSOS, APPELLANT,
v.
L. R. CARLISLE, 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 court dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to file the record and serve their brief within the time limits prescribed by the Florida Appellate Rules, despite a motion for an extension of time.
Yes, the appellant's failure to comply with the rules warrants dismissal. The court denied the motion for an extension of time and granted the motion to dismiss.
“Appellee has moved the court to dismiss this appeal, the principal ground of his motion being that appellant has failed to transmit to this court the record on appeal and to serve a copy of his brief on appellee within the time required by the Florida Appellate Rules.”
This quote establishes the procedural posture of the case and the primary reason for the appellee's motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 12, 1958. The Florida Appellate Rules required the record on appeal to be transmitted within 110 da…
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 Motion For Extension Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee has moved the court to dismiss this appeal, the principal ground of his motion being that appellant has failed to transmit to this court the record on appeal and to serve a copy of his brief on appellee within the time required by the Florida Appellate Rules.
Notice of Appeal was filed in the lower court on February 12, 1958. Rule 3.6, subd. j(1), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., requires that the record on appeal be transmitted to the clerk of this court not later than 110 days after the filing of the notice of appeal. Rule 3.7 a, F.A.R., requires that appellant serve appellee with a copy of his brief at least 40 days before the date on which the record on appeal is required to be transmitted to and filed in this court. Appellee failed to take any action with respect to serving a copy of his brief or transmitting the record on appeal to be filed in this court until more than 110 days after the filing of the notice of appeal. After the time for taking the above indicated actions had expired, appellee moved to dismiss this appeal and appellant moved for an order extending his time for complying with the foregoing 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schneider v. Gustafson Indus., Inc., 139 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1962)…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, citing Pensacola, City of v. Bell, 22 Fla. 469; Stief…
-
The Carter Corp. v. The Albanese Co., Inc., 177 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…sidered 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.…
-
Parada Holding Co. v. Asher Sulkin, 126 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…not been presented with a good cause. Mere oversight of counsel in setting his time schedule for perfecting an appeal has previously been held to be an insufficient reason for denying a motion to dismiss the appeal. Nitsos v. Carlisle, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 144; accord, Lambert v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 615; State v. Hardy, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So. 2d 385; cf. Savage v. Rowell Distributing Corp., Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 415, 418. This court will not, under ordinary circumstances and without good cause s…
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
- Graham v. Mammie Thornton, 104 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)