JOHN E. BEST, JR., THEODORE A. JOHNSON, LEROY JENKINS, AND B AND J JANITOR SUPPLIES, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
EARL E. BARNETTE, 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.
In an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction restraining defendants from operating a competing janitorial supplies business, the court affirmed the injunction based on contract violations, but did so on procedural grounds because the appellants failed to include essential trial testimony in the appellate record.
The court affirmed the temporary injunction on procedural grounds, finding that it could not review the merits of the injunction because the appellants failed to provide the pertinent and material testimony from the trial court proceedings in their appellate record.
“when resort to an appellate court is pursued, it thereupon becomes the duty of the appellant or his counsel to make the errors complained of clearly to appear through availing the court of a proper record of the facts and circumstances pertinent to and connected with the asserted errors”
Establishes the foundational duty of appellants to present a complete record on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA temporary injunctive order was issued against the defendants restraining them from operating a janitorial supplies or services business in competiti…
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 Appellate Record Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
A temporary injunctive order was entered against the defendants, appellants *91here, restraining' them from the operation of a janitorial supplies or services business in competition with plaintiff, appellee here. The interlocutory order appealed from was predicated upon violation of certain contracts which had been entered into between plaintiff and the defendants; it prohibited defendants from engaging in the mentioned business for a period of one year within a limited described geographical area.
The record before us indicates that numerous witnesses, including plaintiff and defendants, testified before the chancellor. The chancellor, in his temporary order, made certain findings from which flowed the decretal injunctive provisions. None of the testimony is presented in the appeal record, although certain phases of it are referred to in appellants’ brief.
In an interlocutory appeal, no record on appeal is required other than certified copies of the appeal papers and the judgment or order appealed from. The appendices are required to contain full copies of all pleadings and other parts of the record needed for determination of the appeal. Rule 4.2, subd. d, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.
In the case of Broward County Port Authority for Use and Benefit of Beacon Light Paint & Wallpaper Corp. v. F. M. Rule & Co., Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 82, we pointed out that when resort to an appellate court is pursued, it thereupon becomes the duty of the appellant or his counsel to make the errors complained of clearly to appear through availing the court of a proper record of the facts and circumstances pertinent to and connected with the asserted errors; and we further stated that when an appellant’s points require a consideration of a record considered by the trial court and upon which that court based its decision, if such record is not brought before the appellate court through the appeal record, the contentions cannot be decided by the appellate court.
There is not contained in appellants’ appendix the pertinent and material testimony which was before the chancellor and which directly entered into the determination of the restraining order issued. Consequently, this court finds itself in no position on this interlocutory appeal to determine the correctness of the chancellor’s temporary in-junctive order.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, J., and HENSLEY, ROBERT E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierson v. Sharp, 283 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…ny, and (4) thus the record on appeal was inadequate for a determination of the appellate issues presented. It is the duty of the appellant to bring before the appellate court a record adequate to support his appeal, Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 90. If the points on appeal are such that they necessarily cannot be decided without a review of the evidence before the trial court, the absence from the record of such evidence precludes appellate review. Such is the case here. Although we are not un…
-
Belfield v. Lochner, 162 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…laimed errors. In considering the matters raised by an appellant, an appellate court must have before it the record under which the lower court arrived at its decision. See Johnson v. Roberts, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 425; Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 90; and Gilson v. Murphy, Fearnley and Yawn, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 447. As heretofore indicated, we have before us no transcript of the testimony considered and utilized by the chancellor, but the record consists only of plaintiffs’ complaint,…
-
Gleim v. Gleim, 176 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…o provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Belfield v. Lochner, Fla. App.1964, 162 So. 2d 668; Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 260; Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 90; Robinson v. Foland, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So. 2d 512. Failure to do so herein requires us to affirm the decision of the trial court. It is therefore Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broward Cnty. Port Auth. v. F. M. Rule & Co., 119 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)