R. CLINTON PITTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
HUGUETTE L. PITTMAN, 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 appellate court granted a motion to quash an appeal because the record on appeal was incomplete, lacking crucial testimony from a prior hearing. Without the full record, the court could not review the lower court's decision.
No, an appellate court cannot review a lower court's order if the record on appeal is incomplete and omits essential testimony upon which the lower court's decision was based.
“It is evident that the testimony adduced at the proceeding held on July 30, 1968 was not stenographically or otherwise reported. This being true, this court cannot review the order and final judgment appealed as it was based at least in part upon the testimony presented before the court on July 30, 1968, which is not included in the record-on-appeal.”
This quote explains the core reason for dismissing the appeal: the missing testimony prevented appellate review.
The appellant appealed an order awarding attorney's fees against him. The lower court heard testimony on two separate dates, July 30, 1968, and Septem…
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 Sufficiency Of The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-defendant appeals an order and final judgment awarding appellee’s attorney of record attorney’s fee in the sum of $4,800 to be paid by appellant.
The order and final judgment recites that the court “heard the testimony of the defendant and numerous expert witnesses who testified on behalf of defendant and plaintiff’s attorney on both July 30, 1968 and September 5, 1968.”
The appellant has brought to this court in the record-on-appeal only such testimony as was adduced at the hearing of September 5, 1968. Appellee filed directions to the clerk to include in the record-on-appeal “all pleadings, testimony and evidence whatsoever in the above entitled cause.” Appellee also filed directions to the court reporter to “transcribe all proceedings that were stenographically or otherwise reported *731in the above entitled cause for inclusion in the record on appeal.”
It is evident that the testimony adduced at the proceeding held on July 30, 1968 was not stenographically or otherwise reported. This being true, this court cannot review the order and final judgment appealed as it was based at least in part upon the testimony presented before the court on July 30, 1968, which is not included in the record-on-appeal.
For the foregoing reason the motion to quash is
Granted.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Agustin Garcia v. Adelina Tarrio and Rigoberto Tarrio, 380 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ed to review, from the beginning, the propriety of various items of cost allowed. This we are unable to do because we do not know the objections made in the trial court, nor do we know the grounds for the objections advanced. See Pittman v. Pittman, 219 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), and Worcester Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Eisenberg, 147 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Affirmed.…
-
Pittman v. Huguette Pittman, 225 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 219 So. 2d 730.…