FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
CARRIE MARTIN, 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 District Court of Appeal ruled on a motion to strike portions of the appellee's notices of supplemental authority filed during appellate proceedings. The court held that while notices of supplemental authority may identify relevant issues and provide page citations, they may not contain argumentative commentary about what cases hold.
Notices of supplemental authority may appropriately indicate the issue pertinent to the point on appeal or contain page citations to enable the court to identify issues and arguments for which the authority is offered, but any comment about what the court held constitutes argument and is subject to a motion to strike.
[1] Notices of supplemental authority, without argument, may be filed with the court before a decision has been rendered to call attention to decisions, rules or statutes dis…
[2] A notice of supplemental authority may indicate the issue pertinent to the point on appeal or contain a page citation to enable the court to identify the issues and argum…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is appropriate for a notice of supplemental authority to indicate the issue pertinent to the point on appeal or to contain a page citation. This enables the court to identify the issues and argument for which the supplemental authority is offered. Any comment about what the court held is argument and will be subject to a motion to strike.”
The court's holding establishing the permissible scope of notices of supplemental authority under appellate procedure rules.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter briefs were served, appellee filed two notices of supplemental authority. The first notice on May 8, 1990 cited Scott v. Otis Elevator Co. and i…
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 Notice Of Supplemental Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant moves to strike portions of appellee’s notices of supplemental authority. We grant the motion to strike, in part.
After all the briefs were served, appellee filed a notice of supplemental authority on May 8, 1990. The notice stated that appellee was submitting the case of Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 524 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1988). Appellee attached a copy of the case, stating the “Scott court, applying a principle pertinent to this case, held that a cause of action for wrongful discharge provided statutorily (in Section 440.205, Fla.Stat. (1977)), was ‘a tort.’ ” (emphasis in original).
On May 11, 1990, appellee filed a second notice of supplemental authority, citing the case of Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc., 552 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1989). The notice of supplemental authority stated the principle for which the case was submitted and quoted directly from Byrd. Ap-pellee also “submit[ted] that the Byrd court thus holds unequivocally that a ‘tort’ claim embraces common law and statutory cause of action alike.”
Appellant moved to strike material from appellee’s notice of supplemental authority as improper. Rule 9.210(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides in part that “[njotices of supplemental authority, without argument, may be filed with the court before a decision has been rendered to call attention to decisions, rules or statutes which have been discovered after the last brief served in the cause.” Appellant argued that the notices contained discussion of the authority and were subject to a motion to strike.
We grant the motion to strike, in part. It is appropriate for a notice of supplemental authority to indicate the issue pertinent to the point on appeal or to contain a page citation. This enables the court to identify the issues and argument for which the supplemental authority is offered. Any comment about what the court held is argument and will be subject to a motion to strike.
Appellant’s motion is granted in part and the editorial material contained in the notices of supplemental authority is stricken.
JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec., Inc., 552 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1989)
- Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 524 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1988)