WINTER PARK FERNERIES, INC., ET AL.,
v.
HIBBARD CASSELBERRY
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 dismiss an appeal, finding it was not frivolous, and reaffirmed a prior order denying a motion to vacate a supersedeas. The court found debatable questions existed, justifying the appeal and the initial grant of supersedeas.
The appeal is not frivolous and will not be dismissed. The prior order granting supersedeas was justified and will be reaffirmed.
“It appears to the Court that there are several debatable questions involved in this' appeal and that the appeal is not frivolous.”
Establishes the court's finding that the appeal has merit and should not be dismissed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was frivolous. Additionally, the appellee sought to vacate a prior order granting supers…
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 Motion To Dismiss Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause coming on to be heard upon appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal as being frivolous, and also upon rehearing of motion to vacate supersedeas, which motion to vacate was denied by an order of this Court entered August 1, 1933, and the record having been again inspected and argument of counsel duly considered;
It appears to the Court that there are several debatable questions involved in this' appeal and that the appeal is not frivolous. It also appears that under the rules governing such matters the Justice of this Court who made the order of supers'edeas sought to be vacated was justified in so doing.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the motion to dismiss the appeal be and the same is hereby denied and that the order heretofore made denying the motion to vacate the order for supersedeas be reaffirmed and allowed to stand as' entered.
*112Davis, C. J., Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, >. J., concur.
Buford, J., dissents.