J. D. HOWELL
v.
STATE
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 denied a motion to file additional assignments of error, emphasizing the need for efficient litigation and preventing endless appeals by requiring all material points to be raised in the initial appeal.
No, the motion to file additional assignments of error is denied. The court held that such a practice would lead to inefficient litigation and undue delay in the administration of justice.
“To permit such procedure would encourage a slouchy, loose practice, as a result of which there would be no end to litigation, and the administration of justice would be unduly delayed.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for denying the motion, highlighting the negative consequences of allowing late filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error sought to file fifteen additional assignments of error after the writ of error was returnable and the transcript had been filed…
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 Assignments Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes on to be heard on an application of plaintiff in error to file additional assignments of error. The writ of error was returnable July 3, 1939, and the transcript was filed on that date. Thirty-three errors were assigned in the transcript. It is now desired to file fifteen additional assignments, most of which go to alleged errors in the trial on a former writ of error in the cause which has been disposed of, the Mandate sent down and a new term intervened.
The proposed assignments of error have been examined and found to be without merit, but if they possessed merit unless it went to a fundamental right, the motion should be *291denied. To permit such procedure would encourage a slouchy, loose practice, as a result of which there would be no end to litigation, and the administration of justice would be unduly delayed.
The rule contemplates that all material points be raised and discussed when the case is presented. This is no unusual requirement nor does it impose any unjust burden on litigants. If any other practice is followed, cases would be decided in peace-meal, and their final disposition indefinitely postponed.
The eases relied on by the movant have been examined, but they rule situations entirely different from the one we have here. The motion is denied.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cash v. State, 73 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1954)…onds under which defendants in criminal proceedings are permitted to go at large after their conviction of crime but before the final disposition of ah appeal taken from a judgment of conviction or sentence. State ex rel. Seay v. Mayo, 139 Fla. 291, 190 So. 598; Webb v. State, Fla., 56 So. 2d 524. In Ex parte Cribbs, 109 Fla. 286, 146 So. 912, the principle is established that where a defendant at large on bail is subsequently surrendered by his surety and recommitted under a capias issued pursuant to the…