STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD HODGES, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court decision and remanded the case because the State's appellate brief failed to comply with Florida Appellate Rule 3.7(f)(3) by presenting a 98-line question statement instead of the required clear and concise presentation. The court gave the State 15 days to amend its brief or face dismissal.
The court held that it is not obligated to deal with points in a brief not stated in compliance with the applicable rule. However, rather than summarily affirm the judgment, the court gave the State 15 days to amend its brief to comply with the rule, with dismissal of the appeal following if the amendment was not made.
“The statement of the questions involved is designed to enable the court to obtain an immediate view of the nature of the controversy; each question to be in a separate paragraph, preferably of not more than ten lines and so phrased that the point of law intended for solution may plainly appear.”
Establishes the purpose and requirements of the appellate rule requiring clear and concise statement of questions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida appealed a lower court decision against Harold Hodges. Upon reviewing the briefs before argument, the court noted that the appell…
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.
On inspecting the briefs herein prior to argument it was noted the single question stated in the appellant’s brief consists of 98 lines and covers more than two pages. Florida Appellate Rule 3.7 f(3), 31 F.S.A., calls for statement of the point or points involved “in a clear and concise manner.” In speaking of its earlier Rule 20 relating to the same subject, the Supreme Court said: “The statement of the questions involved is designed to enable the court to obtain an immediate view of the nature of the controversy; each question to be in a separate paragraph, preferably of not more than ten lines and so phrased that the point of law intended for solution may plainly appear. * * * ” Smith v. Presha, 101 Fla. 1272, 134 So. 44.
In this instance the very length of the question defeats its purpose. It is difficult, if not impossible for the reader to keep its contents in mind. As was said in Pawley v. Pawley, 160 Fla. 903, 37 So.2d 247, 248:
“It often happens that such ‘questions’ are stated at such length and in such detail as to serve no useful purpose. The rule does not contemplate that a briefer, in stating a ‘question’ will attempt to import into the question such details as will make the ‘question’ so imponderable as to destroy its usefulness. ‘Questions’ which cannot reasonably be retained in the mind are useless. * * * ”
An appellate court is not obligated to deal with a point in a brief not stated in compliance with the applicable rule. Hunter v. Tyner, 151 Fla. 707, 10 So. 2d 492; Rollins v. Rollins, 155 Fla. 83, 19 So.2d 562. We will not, however, affirm the judgment for the failure of the appellant to prepare its brief in accordance with the rule (Southern Title & Trust Co. v. Bingham & Maley Co., 119 Fla. 28, 160 So. 480), but we will allow the appellant 15 days in which to amend the brief so as to contain an appropriate statement of the point or points involved as provided for in the Florida Appellate Rules; in default of which the appeal will stand dismissed. Ap-pellee shall be allowed 10 days after service upon him of a copy of appellant’s amended brief or amendment to brief within which to respond.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ART Theatre Enters., Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein, 260 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…for the entry of an amended final judgment limiting the in-junctive portions of the judgment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. . We do not quote these points as models for the guidance of the Bar. See State v. Hodges, Fla.App.1963, 169 So. 2d 359. They are quoted for convenience and clarity in discussion only.…
-
Foster v. 163RD St. Realty, Inc., 172 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1965)…Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 169 So. 2d 359.…
-
Brown v. Dixie Herlong Chastain, 416 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1969)…t court of appeal. * * * ” 1A F.S.A. § 39.14(1) (1968 supp.) . F.S.A. § 39.14(8) (1969 supp.) . The Florida courts have repeatedly held that errors not adequately presented to an appellate court will not be considered. See, e. g., State v. Hodges, 169 So. 2d 359, 360 (Fla.App.1963) and Bolick v. Sperry, 82 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla.1955). . Even if it were possible to attain a stipulated statement of the original hearing, such a statement, if forced upon indigents, in a child custody case involving a large reco…
Authorities Cited
- Hunter v. Tyner, 151 Fla. 707 (Fla. 1942)
- A. A. Smith & the Emp'rs' Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Williams, 155 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1944)
- Rollins v. Rollins, 155 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1944)
- State v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 160 Fla. 903 (Fla. 1948)
- Pawley v. Pawley, 160 Fla. 903 (Fla. 1948)
- S. Title & Tr. Co. v. Bingham & Maley Co., 119 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1935)