FOREMOST DAIRY PRODUCTS INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
v.
HELEN MEPHERSON HUBBARD, ET VIR, ET AL.

Fla. | 1936-04-13
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
123 Fla. 711 Florida Supreme Court (1936)
Also reported at: 167 So. 527

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court denied a motion to vacate or modify a supersedeas order, finding the appeal to be diligent, in good faith, and not frivolous, thus allowing it to proceed for consideration.


Holding

No, the supersedeas order should not be vacated or modified because the appellant has demonstrated diligence and good faith in prosecuting its appeal, and has raised an arguable proposition of law.


Key Quotes

“After full adversary argument the Court is not convinced that the supersedeas order entered by the Circuit Judge in this case should, be either vacated or modified as moved by appellees, therefore the motion to that effect is denied.”

Establishes the court's decision on the motion to vacate or modify the supersedeas order.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellees moved to vacate or modify a supersedeas order entered by the Circuit Judge. The appellant filed its appeal diligently and in good faith, wit…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Davis, J.

Davis, J.

After full adversary argument the Court is not convinced that the supersedeas order entered by the Circuit Judge in this case should, be either vacated or modified as moved by appellees, therefore the motion to that effect is denied.

The appellant has shown the utmost diligence and good faith in the prosecution of its appeal which was entered on November 12, 1935, and made returnable January 15, 1936, less than the maximum'allowable return day. Furthermore, a properly and neatly prepared transcript of the record containing 283 pages, duly authenticated and certified to by the Circuit Court Clerk has been properly filed as of the return date of the appeal and in addition, appellants’ brief, in due form as required by the rules, has been filed in support of the assignments of error relied upon for reversal. An examination of the brief shows that the appeal is not frivolous, hence an arguable proposition of law is properly raised and presented for our determination as an appellate court.

Under such circumstances as those hereinbefore recited, the appeal and supersedeas should stand for consideration in due course, but in view of the nature of the controversy an order will be entered advancing the cause for early disposition at the option of the parties, from and after the time for filing of briefs is completed on both sides.

Order to be entered in conformity to opinion.

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw