WILLIAM WESLEY BOWEN, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS MOORE BOWEN, 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.
In a procedural ruling, the First District Court of Appeal denied the appellee's motion to quash William Wesley Bowen's appeal, holding that non-jurisdictional defects in notices of appeal may be cured by amendment when the opposing party has not been misled or prejudiced. The court emphasized that technical requirements should not prevent justice from being served.
The court denied the motion to quash and granted the appellant's motion to amend the notice of appeal. The court held that non-jurisdictional defects in notices of appeal may be cured by amendment where the appellee has not been misled or prejudiced by the defect.
[1] Non-jurisdictional defects in notices of appeal may be cured by amendment if the appellee has not been misled or prejudiced by the defect.
[2] Courts should not allow technicalities to obscure the justice of a case and should apply common sense to reach a just result.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We should never become so technical that we obscure the justice of a case. To do so merely brings justice and those who administer it into disrepute.”
Establishes the court's policy against allowing procedural technicalities to prevent just outcomes in cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Wesley Bowen filed a notice of appeal on September 9, 1977, stating that the appeal was from an 'Order Denying Motion for New Trial.' Doris Mo…
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 Stare Decisis cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, William Wesley Bowen, filed herein on September 9, 1977 a notice of appeal reciting that the appeal was filed from an “Order Denying Motion for New Trial (see Notice of Appeal”). Appellee has filed herein a motion to quash the appeal citing, among other authorities, Koch v. State Road Department of Florida, 106 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1958). Appellant filed a response to the motion to quash accompanied by a motion for leave to amend his notice of appeal, seeking thereby to appeal from the final judgment rather than the order denying motion for a new trial.
As Judge Mills stated in Hill v. Leon County School Board, 351 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1st DCA 1977), opinion filed October 28, 1977, “ * * * We should never become so technical that we obscure the justice of a case. To do so merely brings justice and those who administer it into disrepute. Although we must have rules to guide us in the performance of our duties, we should never ignore common sense in reaching a just result. If we desire respect for the law, and we do, we must first make the law respectable. To do this we must not permit technicalities from preventing justice being done.”
Further, it appears that the Supreme Court of Florida has itself receded from its opinion in Koch v. State Road Department of Florida, supra, thereby rendering it no longer a precedent for application of the doctrine of stare decisis. (See Greyhound Corporation v. Carswell, 181 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1966) and the many subsequent cases appearing in Shepard’s Florida Citations— Cases, citing same)
This and other courts of Florida have also repeatedly held that non-jurisdictional defects in notices of appeal may be cured by amendment where it does not appear that the appellee has either been misled or prejudiced by the defect. (See Greyhound, supra; Burlingham v. Allen, 295 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); and Hanna v. American International Land Corporation, 289 So. 2d 756 (Fla.2nd DCA 1974) Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appellee’s motion to quash the appeal is denied. Appellant’s motion for permission to amend his notice of appeal is granted and appellant is allowed 15 days from date hereof within which to' file his amended notice. This cause shall thereupon proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Appellate Rules.
By Order of the Court, Acting Chief Judge Tyrie A. Boyer, and Judge Richard W. Ervin, III, Judge E. R. Mills, Jr. dissenting.
MILLS, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
I would grant appellee’s motion to quash appellant’s notice of appeal.
I appreciate the majority’s reliance on my dissent in Hill v. Leon County School Board, 351 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1st DCA 1977), opinion filed October 28, 1977. However, the majority erred in failing to rely on my dissent in resolving Hill and is erring here in relying on my dissent in resolving this case. This case is clearly controlled by our Su preme Court’s decision in Koch v. State Road Department of Florida, 106 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1958). In Koch the Court stated:
“It appears that this appeal is taken from the order of the trial court denying a motion for a new trial. The correctness of such an order may be assigned ‘for matter and cause of error’ only upon an appeal from the final judgment.
It is, therefore,
Ordered that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this Court to entertain it.”
Where our Supreme Court has ruled on a factual situation which is identical to the facts in this case, I feel compelled to follow its decision. Otherwise, what would happen to the doctrine of stare decisis?
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robustiano Puga & Medmold, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…962, 360 S.W. 2d 726; Clark v. Dubbs, Mo.App.1962, 360 S.W. 2d 288.]” [emphasis added]. Id. at 746-47. This rule, in turn, has been explicitly followed in White v. State, 267 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), and implicitly followed in Bowen v. Bowen, 352 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), dismissed, 360 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1980), and Rosen v. Hunter, 224 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), so as to treat, as here, a notice of appeal taken from an order denying a post-trial motion for rehearing as demonstrating sufficien…
-
Norm Burg Constr. Corp. v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 514 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1987)…2 (Fla.1970); State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, 196 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1967); Bay Area News, Inc. v. Poe, 364 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1979); Casino, Inc. v. Kugeares, 354 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bowen v. Bowen, 352 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), dismissed, 360 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1978); Burlingham v. Allen, 295 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). In Milar Galleries, Inc. v. Miller and in Burlingham v. Allen, a single notice of appeal was held effective to secure appellate rev…
-
Aguiar v. Doral Hotel & Country Club & Prof'l Administrators, 599 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ufficient information from which it can reasonably be determined which order is being appealed, technical defects in the notice that neither affect jurisdiction nor mislead or prejudice the other party will not require dismissal. See Bowen v. Bowen, 352 So. 2d 166, 167 (Fla. [*702] 1st DCA 1977) (nonjurisdictional defects in notices of appeal may be cured by amendment when appellee has not been misled or prejudiced), dismissed, 360 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1978); Hanna v. American Int’l Land Corp., 289 So. 2d 756, 75…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Greyhound Corp. v. Carswell, 181 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1966)
- Hill v. Sch. Bd. OF Leon Cnty., 351 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Koch v. State Rd. Dep't OF Fla., 106 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1958)
- Hanna v. Am. Int'l Land Corp., 289 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Burlingham v. Allen, 295 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)