ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
R. D. HILL, AS COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA ET AL., APPELLEES; ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND EDWIN C. WILSON ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. R. D. HILL, AS COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
St. Regis Paper Company challenged the propriety of the Comptroller filing a reply brief in response to the appellant's reply brief in an appellate tax dispute. The court held that Florida Appellate Rules do not authorize appellees to file reply briefs without court permission and granted the motion to strike the Comptroller's improperly filed second brief.
Florida Appellate Rules do not authorize appellees to file reply briefs without court consent. The Comptroller's reply brief is improper and must be stricken. The appellant is the only party granted the right to file a reply brief under the rules.
“The office of a reply brief is to respond to new matters contended by an opposing brief.”
Establishes the limited purpose of reply briefs in appellate procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal regarding county tax matters in St. Johns County, Florida. The appellant filed its main brief, the Comptroller filed his a…
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 Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO STRIKE AP-PELLEE’S REPLY BRIEF
This matter is before the court on appellant’s motion to strike the reply brief of the Comptroller, one of the appellees herein. The court file on this matter reflects that appellant has filed its main brief, the Comptroller has filed his brief of appellee, and appellant has filed its reply brief on March 18, 1967. The filing of all of the briefs last enumerated is expressly provided for by Florida Appellate Rule 3.7, 31 F.S.A.
On April 3, 1967, the appellee Comptroller filed a second brief entitled “Reply Brief of the Comptroller.” Appellant has moved *366to strike said reply brief on the grounds that the Florida Appellate Rules do not authorize the filing of a reply brief by the appellee without consent of this court.
The office of a reply brief is to respond to new matters contended by an opposing brief. Under the scheme of appellate procedure adopted in this State, express provision has been made under which an appellant is permitted to file a brief in reply to appellee’s brief. Florida Appellate Rule 3.7, subd. h. Appellee is permitted to argue in his brief all points presented by the appellant in his main brief “ * * * and such additional points as appellee desires to present as fall within the assignments or cross-assignments of error.” Florida Appellate Rule 3.7, subd. g(3).
A review of the reported decisions in this State fails to reflect a case relating to the propriety of an appellee filing a reply brief, presumably in reply to appellant’s reply brief. However, as noted above, our appellate rules do not authorize such a brief by the appellee. It is clear, however, that matters argued for the first time in an appellant’s reply brief will not be considered by the reviewing court. See: Pursell v. Sumpter Cooperative, Inc., Fla.App., 169 So.2d 515, fn. 2 at page 518.
In 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1334 a, page 361, we find the rule to be stated as follows:
“It has been held that there is no authority for a brief of appellee in reply to appellant’s reply brief, and that such a brief will be stricken on motion.” Citing in support thereof In re Rinard’s Estate, 224 Iowa 100, 275 N.W. 485; Ardolino v. Reinhardt, 128 App.Div. 339, 112 N.Y.S. 641; and O’Brien v. Puget Sound Plywood, 23 Wash.2d 917, 165 P.2d 86.
Inspection of the initial brief filed in behalf of appellee, Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., indicates that the State was cognizant of the meaning and import of Florida Appellate Rule 3.7, subd. g(3) inasmuch as virtually all of said appellee’s brief is devoted to argument in support of its cross-assignments of error as is contemplated by the subject rule.
It appearing that there is no valid purpose or authority for a reply brief by the appellee, appellant’s motion to strike ap-pellee’s brief is granted.
RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Page v. City OF Fernandina Beach, 714 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…. 3d DCA 1993); Mestre Rental Co. v. Resources Recovery (Dade County), Inc., 568 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), overruled in part on other grounds by De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Hill, 198 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Pursell v. Sumter Elec. Coop., Inc., 169 So. 2d 515, 518 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (generally, matters raised for the first time in appellant’s reply brief cannot be considered on appeal). If section 196.012(6) had not been…
-
Gen. Mortg. Assocs., Inc. v. Campolo Realty & Mortg. Corp., 678 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…3d DCA 1993); Rolling Oaks Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Dade County, 492 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 503 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1987); Zerwal v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 332 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Hill, 198 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Pursell v. Sumter Elec. Co-op., Inc., 169 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Going further than we need, however, we also find the position wanting on the merits. While the present instruments do contain a clause that: [t]he foreg…
-
Colucci v. Greenfield, 547 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…t time on appeal in an appellant’s reply brief; the court is confined solely to the points on appeal raised in the appellant’s main brief. Zerwal v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 332 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Hill, 198 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Pursell v. Sumter Elec. Coop., Inc., 169 So. 2d 515, 518 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Nor do I think errors relied on by the court are so blatant that we should notice them on our own, even in the absence of a proper point on…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pursell v. Sumter Elec. Co-Operative, Inc., 169 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)