WILDA JOSEPH
v.
ERNEST JEANTY
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance when the reasons stated in the motion are insufficient.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance when the stated reasons for the continuance are insufficient to warrant delay of trial.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilda Joseph appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County. The trial court denied Joseph's motion…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
WILDA KELLEY JOSEPH, Appellant,
v.
ERNEST E. JEANTY, JR., and STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellees.
No. 4D19-1229
[September 18, 2019]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael I. Rothschild, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE 18- 001191 (44).
Wilda Joseph, Hollywood, pro se.
No appearance for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). As to appellant’s argument that the court erred in denying her motion to continue the trial, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance based upon the reason set forth in the motion.
WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.