GOLDEN GATE DEVELOPMENT CO.
v.
MARGARET MALONEY RITCHIE, ET AL.
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 an appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with court rules for brief preparation. However, the court decided to withhold a ruling on the motion until after oral argument, allowing for a full consideration of the case on its merits.
The court withheld ruling on the motion to dismiss the appeal. The court will consider the merits of the case after hearing oral argument.
“This cause is here on motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appellant has failed to comply with Sub-s'ections (c) and (f) of Rule 20 of this Court controlling the manner of preparing briefs to be filed in this Court.”
This quote establishes the procedural posture of the case and the reason for the motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a brief that did not comply with court rules regarding its preparation. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based o…
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 Motion To Dismiss Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is here on motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appellant has failed to comply with Sub-s'ections (c) and (f) of Rule 20 of this Court controlling the manner of preparing briefs to be filed in this Court. An examination has been made of the brief and while the same fails to meet the requirements of the Rule and is otherwise subject to the criticism appearing in *424the motion, we have observed a request on the part of counsel for appellees for an oral argument, and under the circumstances of this cas'e, we have concluded that it would be expedient to withhold a ruling on the motion to dismiss until after the case is heard on oral argument, when the entire record can, be considered by this Court on its merits.
It is so ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.