FILOMIA
v.
REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION
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.
An appellant in an administrative appeal must affirmatively demonstrate error, and the burden of properly presenting a case for review rests on the litigant regardless of whether represented by counsel.
[1] A pro se litigant on appeal is bound by the same procedural rules applicable to counsel and bears the burden of properly presenting the case for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“in appellate proceedings . . . the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error”
Statement of the appellate standard governing review in Florida.
Ingrid Filomia appealed a decision by the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission against her in a matter involving Celebrity Cruises Inc. Filomia …
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 Pro Se Litigant Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-2208 Lower Tribunal No. 18-2141
________________
Ingrid Filomia,
Appellant,
vs.
Celebrity Cruises Inc. and Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Appellees.
An Administrative appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission. Ingrid Filomia, in proper person.
Amanda L. Neff (Tallahassee), Deputy General Counsel & Chief Appellate Attorney, for appellee Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission. Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Although we are sympathetic to appellant’s personal tragedy, it is wellsettled that “in appellate proceedings . . . the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error,” thus, we affirm.1 Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahasee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); see Steele v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 596 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“The burden of properly presenting a case to this court for review must therefore remain squarely upon the litigant, whether represented by counsel or not.”); see also J.A.B. Enters. v. Gibbons, 596 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“[A]n issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed abandoned.”) (citations omitted). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Miami Beach Cmty. Church, Inc. v. Stanton, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- J.A.B. Enters. & John Brown v. Gibbons, 596 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Stueber v. Tom Gallagher as Commissioner of Education, 812 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Steele v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 596 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)