EDITH L. THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
FOOD FAIR STORES OF FLORIDA, INC., 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.
This case addresses whether an appellant must include an appendix in their brief when the record-on-appeal is less than 75 pages. The court held that an appendix is not required in such circumstances, as the purpose of the rule is to prevent duplication and unnecessary expense.
No, an appendix is not required in such circumstances. The purpose of requiring an appendix is to prevent duplication of readily accessible material and unnecessary expense, which would not be served by requiring one for a short record.
“We find no logical basis for a requirement that an appendix be filed when the record-on-appeal is less than 75 pages.”
Establishes the court's primary reasoning for denying the motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed motions to strike the appellant's brief and dismiss the appeal, arguing that the brief lacked a required appendix. The record-on-ap…
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.
The appellee has filed its motion to strike the brief of the appellant and has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The ground for each motion is that appellant’s brief does not include an appendix. It is agreed by counsel that the record-on-appeal consists of less than 75 pages, and that the appeal is upon the original record. Florida Appellate Rule 3.7(j), 31 F.S.A., provides: “Appendices may be omitted if the record-on-appeal consists of a certified transcript or stipulated statement of 75 pages or less.” Appellee urges that this rule does not apply because the appeal is upon the original record. The motion to strike the brief and the motion to dismiss are denied.
We find no logical basis for a requirement that an appendix be filed when the record-on-appeal is less than 75 pages. It is apparent that while rule 3.7(j) does not include a direct reference to an appeal on an original record of less than 75 pages, the purpose of the rule is to save the time of the court where the appendix will be a duplication of readily accessible material. In addition the rule should not be construed to require an unnecessary expense to the litigant. We will therefore decline to strike the brief or dismiss the appeal under these circumstances.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donald (Don) W. Grace v. Grace, 162 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…as not been hindered or handicapped by the rule departure in the expeditious determination of this appeal. A rule should not be so construed as to require an unnecessary expense to a litigant (Thompson v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc., Fla.App., 107 So. 2d 393). The assignments of error pose two questions concerning' the validity of the chancellor’s pendente lite order herein. The first assignment of error raises the question as to whether the record before the chancellor sufficiently established a valid…
-
Kaye v. Rosalina Cavada and Maria Cavada, 141 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…PER CURIAM. Motions denied on the authority of Thompson v. Food Fair Stores, Fla.App. 1958, 107 So. 2d 393.…