G. S. MOORE, ET UX.,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
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 Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error because the proposed bill of exceptions was not authenticated by the trial judge and no assignments of error were properly filed or served. This procedural defect prevented the court from considering the merits of the appeal.
No, the appellate court cannot consider a bill of exceptions and assignments of error that lack the trial judge's authentication and were not properly served on the opposing party.
“There appears' in the transcript filed here a purported proposed bill of exceptions, including certain assignments of error, which was not authenticated by the trial judge and which, therefore, can not be considered by this Court.”
Establishes the primary reason for dismissal: the unauthenticated bill of exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants filed a transcript containing a proposed bill of exceptions and assignments of error. However, this bill of exceptions was not authenti…
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
There appears' in the transcript filed here a purported proposed bill of exceptions, including certain assignments of error, which was not authenticated by the trial judge and which, therefore, can not be considered by this Court. There are no assignments of error included in the bill of exceptions authenticated by the trial court. It is affirmatively shown that no assignments of error were presented with the proposed bill of exceptions at the time same was settled and authenticated and that ño copy of assignments of error has been served on the defendant in error, or its attorney. Therefore, motion to dismiss writ of error should be granted on the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grounds of defendant in error’s motion to dismiss.
Other grounds of motion not adjudicated.
So ordered.
Dismissed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.