IDA MAY ADAMS
v.
ROLAND ADAMS
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.
This case concerns whether a Chancellor can take judicial notice of their own prior final decrees. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no error in its handling of the pleadings and the denial of a motion to dismiss.
No, a Chancellor cannot take judicial notice of their own final decrees unless they are properly pleaded and made part of the record of the case under review, similar to how the Supreme Court handles its own opinions.
“In deciding one case this Court will not take judicial notice of what took place in the record of another unless brought to the attention of the pleader and made part of the record of the case under review.”
Establishes the rule regarding judicial notice of prior decrees.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee filed a bill for divorce against appellant. The Chancellor denied a motion to dismiss the bill and granted a motion for a better bill of part…
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 Pleading Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee brought suit against appellant for divorce. The Chancellor denied a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and granted a motion for better bill of particulars. An amended bill was filed and a motion for better bill of particulars was denied as to that except as to paragraph five. This appeal is from both decrees.
It is contended that a Chancellor cannot take judicial notice of his final decrees unless pleaded in the same manner required by the Supreme Court as a prerequisite to taking judicial notice of its opinions.
The Chancellor answered this question in the negative. If it is properly before this Court we find no error in his answer. In deciding one case this Court will not take judicial notice of what took place in the record of another unless brought to the attention of the pleader and made part of the record of the case under review. Atlas Land Corporation v. Norman, 116 Fla. 800, 156 So. 885.
Three other questions are argued but they all go to the sufficiency of the original and the amended bill of complaint. The amended bill is a complete revision and restatement of the cause. Isolated portions of it might be susceptible to the assault made on it but when read as a whole it meets the requirement for good pleading.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.
*219Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. The Honorable Harold Vann, 342 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…certified his desire to follow the directions of this court, it is incumbent upon us, by this opinion, to set forth the duty of the respondent and the basis for our decision herein. See State ex rel. Lawler v. City of West Palm Beach, 125 Fla. 626, 170 So. 697, 699 (1936). It is clear that the trial judge, in refusing to proceed with the arbitration, felt that the following section of the law forbade him to proceed: “(3) The clerk shall, with the advice and cooperation of the parties and their counsel,…
-
Kostecos v. Johnson, 85 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1956)…s correct, we are constrained to point out that the trial court is not authorized to take judicial notice of the records in a different case pending or disposed of in the same court but outside-the record 'in the case before him. See Adams v. Adams, 126 Fla. 217, 170 So. 697, and Cassels v. Ideal Farms Drainage District, 156 Fla. 152, 23 So. 2d 247. The case before us illustrates the sense of the rule. The judgment recites that the trial judge took judicial notice of the entire contents of the records in t…
-
State v. Cone, 137 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1939)…hereinabove described, and also all other interest now due or which will fall due on bonds of said District prior to November 1, 1938.” A peremptory writ should not have been denied. State, ex rel. Lawler v. City of West Palm Beach, 125 Fla. 626, 170 So. 697, relates to municial bonds, and gasoline tax fund under the Acts of 1929 and 1931 were not involved. Rehearing denied. Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur. Justice Brown not participating'as authoried by Secti…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Will Strachaan v. State, 116 Fla. 736 (Fla. 1934)
- Atlas Land Corp. v. Norman, 116 Fla. 800 (Fla. 1934)