DAREL F. WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JIMMY DEDMON, APPELLEE; WILLIAM BURDGES, APPELLANT, V. JIMMY DEDMON, 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 held that a minor, inadvertent error in a notice of appeal should not lead to dismissal if no prejudice results and the intent is clear.
The notice of appeal incorrectly named the defendant as the appellant, when it was intended to be filed by the plaintiff. All subsequent filings corre…
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 Administration Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee, defendant below, has moved to dismiss each of these appeals because of an alleged defect in the notice of appeal. This notice stated that the appeal was taken by the defendant and the notice was signed by a law firm “as attorneys for the defendant,” while actually the members of that firm were attorneys of record for the plaintiff and the appeal was intended to be taken by the plaintiff. A few days later, within the time allowed by the rules, the assignments of error and directions to the clerk were filed, signed by the same firm as attorneys for the plaintiff. After the time prescribed by our rules for filing a notice of appeal, the appellee filed the motion to dismiss on the mentioned ground.
Technically, of course, the notice of appeal is defective in naming the wrong party as the one taking the appeal. On the other hand, from the moment of the filing of the notice, it was perfectly *565-obvious to all concerned that the appeal was really taken by the plaintiff, and all ■appeal papers subsequently filed correctly stated the parties’ names. It is clear from the record that no prejudice or inconvenience resulted to either party from this error in the notice. The error was patently ■an inadvertent misprision, a clerical error, a kind that occasionally creeps into papers prepared in a law office.
We are thus squarely confronted with the question whether we should strictly apply the rules and dismiss appeal, or, in the light of the peculiar circumstances of this •case, deny the motion to dismiss so that the appellant will not be deprived of a judicial appellate review of the judgment appealed from. We think the latter action is justified by the purpose of our procedural rules to effect a proper administration of justice under law.
Motion to dismiss denied.
CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and STURGIS and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Greyhound Corp. v. Carswell, 181 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1966)…eenth Judicial Circuit in and for Washington County, Florida, bearing date of the 18th day of March, 1964, entered in' the above styled cause and the parties to said cause are called upon to take notice of this appeal.” . Fla.App., 1st Dist., 1962, 145 So. 2d 564. . Fla., 1955, 80 So. 2d 354. . Fla.App., 2nd Dist., 1965, case no. 5580. . F.A.R. Rule 4.5, subd. c(6), 31 F.S.A.; Shaw v. Puleo, Fla.1964, 159 So. 2d 641. . The rationale of the following language from the decision of the First District in Wat…
-
Robbins v. Cipes, 181 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1966)…istrict Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal. Jurisdiction is grounded on the proposition that the dismissal of the appeal is in conflict with Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Holt, (1955, Fla.) 80 So. 2d 354, Watson v. Dedmon (1962, Fla.App.) 145 So. 2d 564, and similar cases. The record shows that the notice of appeal 1 erroneously recited that the order was recorded in the “Minute Book” instead of in the “Chancery Order Book”. The sole [*522] ground alleged in the motion to dismiss2 was that the pet…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Jimmy Dedmon v. The Honorable Donald K. Carroll, 151 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1963)…these judgments and the notices of appeal were signed by an attorney other than his. The appellate court, the District Court of Appeal, First District, the judges of [*7] which are respondents here, entered its order denying the motions to dismiss. 145 So. 2d 564. In this order the court stated, at p. 564: “Technically, of course, the notice of appeal is defective in naming the wrong party as the one taking the appeal. On the other hand, from the moment of the filing of the notice, it was perfectly obvious…