ARTHUR L. PAULA, ALIAS ART RUSSO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 State moved to dismiss an appeal due to the appellant's attorney failing to file a brief on time, despite multiple extensions. The court denied the motion, citing a similar case where the same attorney's dereliction was addressed, and allowed the brief to be filed.
No, the appeal should not be dismissed. The court denied the State's motion to dismiss.
“The State has moved to dismiss this appeal because of the dereliction of the attorney for the appellant in failing to timely file his brief.”
This quote establishes the core reason for the State's motion to dismiss the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State moved to dismiss the appeal because the appellant's attorney failed to file the required brief within the extended deadlines. This was the s…
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 Extension Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
The State has moved to dismiss this appeal because of the dereliction of the attorney for the appellant in failing to timely file his brief.
The record of this court shows that three extensions of time have been granted appellant for the filing of his brief; two by stipulation and one by petition. Appellant has also been granted one extension by the trial court.
In this case we have dereliction of the same attorney for the appellant that we had in the case of Hill v. State of Florida, Fla. App., 185 So.2d 759. We have this date entered an order denying the State’s motion in Hill, supra.
We shall not repeat what we said in Hill, supra, but we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal and permit the attorney for the appellant to file a brief in this case. After the State’s reply brief is filed, this court will consider the case on the briefs of the parties without oral argument.
ALLEN, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 340 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…ie we are also of the opinion that the order denying the petitioner-defendant’s motion to dismiss the punitive damage count in respondent-plaintiffs’ complaint should be vacated and set aside. 5 Fla.Jur., Certiorari, § 12, cf. Schoenrock v. Ballard, 185 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 303 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1974). In the proceedings below the petitioner-defendant had issued an insurance policy to the respondents-plaintiffs covering certain personal and real property. Respondents filed a bre…
-
Craig v. Craig, 404 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…and bars further action to determine such rights. Pitman v. Pitman, 338 So. 2d 247 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Henderson v. Henderson, 226 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The judicial power is not delegable and cannot be abdicated. See Schoenrock v. Ballard, 185 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). This is not a situation where a trial court has reserved jurisdiction to determine property rights after entry of a judgment of dissolution. Here, the court specifically chose not to reach any conclusion as to the division of th…
-
Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 279 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…rin v. Charles Pfizer & Co. (Fla.1961), 128 So. 2d 594; Adjmi v. State (Fla.1963), 154 So. 2d 812; Hedges v. State (Fla.), 172 So. 2d 824; Florida Real Estate Commission v. Harris (Fla.), 134 So. 2d 785. See also Schoenrock v. Ballard, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 760. Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court had the power without hindrance to consider, review and decide all appellate points when it took jurisdiction and such action would avoid the needless additional steps condemned in Zirin v. Charles Pfizer &…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. State, 185 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)