EDSEL POSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND A. BRUCE CARR, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS PENSACOLA TRACTOR COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 District Court of Appeal denied a motion to quash an appeal, finding that the appellant had not yet abandoned their assignments of error despite a deficient brief. The court emphasized the need for the full record to properly assess the motion.
No, the appellant has not abandoned their assignments of error. The motion to quash the appeal is denied because the record has not been filed, and the court cannot adequately assess the motion without it.
“All that is before this court is the notice of appeal, the appellant's brief and appel-lee's motion, which is not supported by any portion of the record by which the propriety of the motion can be determined.”
This quote establishes the limited nature of the record before the court and the appellee's failure to support their 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, Ford Motor Company, moved to quash the appeal, arguing that the appellant had abandoned their assignments of error by failing to argue t…
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 Assignments Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
We are confronted with a motion of ap-pellee Ford Motor Company to quash this appeal on grounds that it is frivolous and in support thereof appellee asserts that appellant has failed to argue any of his assignments of error and has therefore abandoned them.
The record on appeal has not been filed in this court nor is it due under the rule (Rule 3.6, subd. j(l) F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.). All that is before this court is the notice of appeal, the appellant’s brief and appel-lee’s motion, which is not supported by any portion of the record by which the propriety of the motion can be determined. Specifically, the record here does not contain a copy of the assignments of error.
While we find that appellant’s brief does not make an appropriate reference to the assignments of error upon which the statement of questions involved on appeal is predicated, as required by Rule 3.7, subd. f(4), F.A.R., the questions stated and the argument addressed clearly infer that the assignments of error are directed to bring about a review of the action of the trial court in dismissing appellant’s complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. In that aspect of the situation and considering appellee’s failure to provide this court with the necessary documents required to intelligently act on the motion, we are not inclined at this stage to visit upon appellant the harsh relief sought by the motion.
*109The motion to quash is denied, without prejudice to renew it upon an appropriate showing.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD, JJ., concur.