ERMINE M. OWENBY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF QUINCY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 Florida Supreme Court denied a motion to affirm judgment, finding that the motion required a full review of the case record, which is not the intended purpose of such a motion. The court emphasized that motions to affirm are not meant to bypass the standard appellate review process.
No, a motion to affirm judgment is not appropriate when it necessitates a comprehensive review of the entire record and transcript, as this bypasses the standard appellate review process.
“We deem it pertinent to observe that we do not consider it appropriate to file a motion to affirm judgment in a case such as this wherein it is necessary for this court to examine the entire transcript and consider the case as fully as would be ultimately necessary for proper disposition of the matter.”
Explains why the motion to affirm was deemed inappropriate.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed a motion to affirm the trial court's judgment, arguing that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's fin…
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 Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm judgment which was filed in this cause is grounded upon the proposition that an inspection of the record will affirmatively show “that the findings of the' trial' court are supported by the evidence, and that there is sufficient and substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial judge”. We deem it pertinent to observe that we do not consider it appropriate to file a motion to affirm judgment in a case such as this wherein it is necessary for this court to examine the entire transcript and consider the case as fully as would be ultimately necessary for proper disposition of the matter. Our rule permitting.' a motion to affirm judgment does not, as we construe it, contemplate a motion of the character here under consideration which requires that we give the same attention to the case as would be necessary for us to give to it should it follow its regular course on appeal.
The motion to affirm judgment is hereby denied.
-DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atkins v. Humes, 110 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1959)…mmon knowledge and experience, regardless of expert testimony, that the patient needlessly suffered from a condition the anesthetist herself sought to prevent. Montgomery v. Stary, Fla., 84 So. 2d 34.” In the cited case, Montgomery v. Stary, supra [84 So. 2d 40.], this court affirmed a judgment for plaintiff in a malpractice suit involving an allegedly negligent application of an accepted medical treatment. Expert testimony in support of the plaintiff’s theory was attacked by the defendant on the ground th…
-
Ermine M. Owenby v. City OF Quincy, 95 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1957)