BROWN
v.
LINTON
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 dismissed an appeal because the notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after the judgment, violating a state statute. The court also noted the record lacked a final judgment, making it impossible to determine if the date in the notice was a clerical error.
The appeal was not timely filed because the notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after the stated judgment date, violating Florida Statute 59.08. The court could not determine if the date was a clerical error due to the absence of a final judgment in the record.
“The notice of appeal filed in this cause on February 24, 1953 recites the appeal is taken to "review the final order * * * being a final judgment for the defendant * * * dated the 2nd day of December, 1952."”
Establishes the date of the judgment as stated in the notice of appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 24, 1953, stating it was to review a final judgment for the defendant dated December 2, 1952. The r…
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 Timeliness Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
The notice of appeal filed in this cause on February 24, 1953 recites the appeal is taken to “review the final order * * * being a final judgment for the defendant * * * dated the 2nd day of December, 1952.” Therefore, the notice of appeal affirmatively shows .elapse of more than sixty days from and after entry of the judgment. appealed .from contrary to Section 59.08, F.S.1951, F.S.A. The record elsewhere shows the verdict of the jury to have been rendered December 15, 1952, thirteen days after'the date specified for the alleged final judgment.
There is no way we can determine from the record whether the date set forth in the notice of appeal is a clerical error for the reason that contrary to the requirement of Rule 11(12) of this Court, 30 F.S.A., the record does not contain any final judgment.
The appeal is dismissed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hickory House, Inc. v. Brown, 77 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1955)…appellants maintain that under the same case we are required to reverse the judgment below. Appellants further contend that not only must the judgment in this case be reversed on the authority of Hall v. Holland, but that Bottom v. Rank, Fla. 1954, 70 So. 2d 832, is squarely on point and unequivocally holds that the defendant under the circumstances shown here cannot as a matter of law be held liable for the injuries received by the plaintiff. We direct our attention first to Hall v. Holland, supra [47 So.…
-
Cecile Resort, Ltd. v. Hokanson, 729 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…oral argument, but upon the assertion of active negligence by the agent of the defendant. Cecile Resort is not liable for Mr. Hokanson’s injuries as a matter of law merely because he chose to use its cable to ascend the flagpole. See Bottom v. Rank, 70 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla.1954). Mr. Hokanson did not present any evidence indicating that Cecile Resort suggested that he use the cable. He admitted that he inspected “every bit” of the cable before he used it to ascend the flagpole and he didn’t see any defects.…
-
Fields v. Quillian, 74 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1954)…ami Beach Ry. Co., Fla., 57 So. 2d 445; Richmond v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla., 58 So. 2d 687; Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria of Orlando, Fla., 61 So. 2d 477; Embry v. Southern Gas & Electric Corp., Fla., 63 So. 2d 258, 264; Bottom v. Rank, Fla., 70 So. 2d 832. It is likewise the settled law in this State that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence there can be no recovery. Ferlita & Sons v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509, 197 So. 340; Matson v. Tip Top Grocer…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence