CHRIS NEWMAN AND SHARON NEWMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RUSS EVERETT AS SUPERVISOR AND/OR OFFICER OF HOLLYWOOD CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, GEORGE COLLINS, AS A SUPERVISOR AND/OR OFFICER OF HOLLYWOOD CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, APPELLEES
CHRIS NEWMAN AND SHARON NEWMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
RUSS EVERETT AS SUPERVISOR AND/OR OFFICER OF HOLLYWOOD CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, GEORGE COLLINS, AS A SUPERVISOR AND/OR OFFICER OF HOLLYWOOD CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, APPELLEES
562 So. 2d 840
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1990)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We dismiss this appeal on the authority of Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. GARRETT, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Concurrence
GARRETT, Judge,
concurring specially.
On March 13, 1989, appellants filed a Notice of Appeal of a March 7, 1989 order on appellees’ motion to dismiss. On June 26, 1989 the parties obtained a Final Judgment of Dismissal. Appellant has not appealed the final judgment. Our dismissal of this appeal on the authority of Russell should relate only to the March 7, 1989 order. If appellant now chooses to appeal the June 26, 1989 final judgment, another panel on another day will have to decide the timeliness of that appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.R. v. State, 588 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ubstantial evidence pointing to the defendant’s guilt is also unavailing. The Florida Supreme Court has held that failure to conduct a Richardson hearing is per se reversible error. Brown v. State, 515 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1987); see also State v. Kerr, 562 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Moreover, the supreme court has resisted attempts to apply harmless error review to Richardson violations. See Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.1977) (“No appellate court can be certain that errors of this type are h…
-
Carlton Taylor v. State, 643 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…friend. The State failed to show that its ability to try the case would have been substantially impeded by the introduction of the testimony, and thus the trial court’s ruling constituted an abuse of discretion requiring reversal. See State v. Kerr, 562 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); S.G. v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The court also committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury on manslaughter without defining justifiable and excusable homicide. Reversal is required because Taylor’s…
Authorities Cited
- Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)