A. A. COULT AND GLADYS COULT, HIS WIFE, JOE P. WALKER, ET AL.,
v.
MCINTOSH INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION
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 considered a motion to dismiss a case due to the appellant's failure to comply with court rules regarding brief preparation. The court found the brief deficient in several key areas, including the statement of the controlling question, referencing assignments of error, and citing official reports.
No, the brief fails to comply with amended Rule 20 in multiple respects. The court held that the brief must be corrected to meet the rule's requirements.
“The brief of plaintiffs in error has failed to comply with Rule 20 in that, (1) the Plaintiffs in Error did not "begin the brief with a concise statement in the briefest and most general terms of the controlling question or questions involved, stated in the form of a question for decision, each such question being so phrased that the point of law intended for solution may plainly appear." (2) The assignments of error are not referred to in the brief, nor does the brief point out the pages in the record where errors relied upon for reversal are shown.”
This quote outlines the specific rule violations identified by the court regarding the content and structure of the appellant's brief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs in error (appellants) filed a brief that did not comply with amended Rule 20 of the Florida Supreme Court. Specifically, the brief fail…
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.
The defendant in error includes in its brief motion to dismiss this case because the plaintiffs in error have failed to comply with amended Rule 20 adopted November 5th, 1930, in the preparation and presentation of their brief. The brief of plaintiffs in error has failed to comply with Rule 20 in that, (1) the Plaintiffs in Error did not “begin the brief with a concise statement in the briefest and most general terms of the controlling question or questions involved, stated in the form of a question for decision, each such question being so phrased that the point of law intended for solution may plainly appear.” (2) The assignments of error are not referred to in the brief, nor does the brief point out the pages in the record where errors relied upon for reversal are shown. The brief disregards that provision of Rule 20 which requires that “opinions of *865this' Court must be cited from the official reports when possible as well as from the Southern Reporter” in that the brief does not cite the official reports.
For the reasons above set forth, unless the plaintiffs in error shall file in this Court within fifteen days a brief complying with the provisions of amended Rule 20, supra, the cause will stand dismissed.
t The defendant in error shall be served with copy of the brief herein required and shall have fifteen days from receipt thereof within which to file reply brief.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Bu- • ford, J. J., concur.
Davis, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Germaine Urban v. City OF Daytona Beach, 101 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…nt of opposing counsel. It is so ordered. STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur. . Rule 3.3, F.A.R. . See: Bolick v. Sperry, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 374. . See: Pawley v. Pawley, 160 Fla. 903, 37 So. 2d 247; Coult v. McIntosh Inv. Co., 126 Fla. 864, 171 So. 793.…