ROBERT CLEELAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC., 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.
Appellant Cleeland appeals a summary judgment entered against him in a negligence action arising from a three-car accident. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that no genuine issue of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment, despite appellant's failure to include his own deposition in the appellate record.
Summary judgment was properly entered because no genuine issue of material fact existed to prevent the trial judge from rendering the judgment. The appellate record supported the summary judgment determination even though appellant failed to include his deposition in the appellate record.
“Upon this appeal, it was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error.”
Establishes the appellant's burden to show error in appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was traveling south on the Palmetto By-pass when a three-car accident occurred. Appellee's employee was driving north when struck on the rig…
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 Incomplete Appellate Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary judgment. From the record on appeal, it appears that the appellant was involved in a three-car accident while traveling south on *261the Palmetto By-pass. An automobile belonging to the appellee, while being driven by one of its employees, was traveling north on the By-pass when it was struck on the right side by a third party who was attempting to pass appellee’s driver. The impact on the appellee’s car caused it to be driven across the median strip, separating the north and southbound lanes of the traffic, into the appellant’s car. The appellant filed his complaint sounding in negligence solely against the appellee. Following the taking of depositions; the filing of affidavits by the appellant, the appellee’.s driver, the third driver, and the law enforcement officer who investigated the accident, the trial judge entered a summary final judgment in favor of the defendant, based upon “ * * * the pleadings, deposition of the Plaintiff, and the admissible portions of the affidavits before the Court * * * [emphasis added]
Upon this appeal, it was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Pearlman, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 601; DiVosta v. Boam Corp., Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 42. The appellant failed to accompany the record with the deposition of the plaintiff which, in part, contributed to the trial judge’s ruling. Therefore, this court does not have before it the entire record which was before the trial judge at the time he rendered the summary final judgment here under review. It was incumbent upon the appellant to bring the entire record to this court. See: Rule 3.6(b), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.; Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 226; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801. However, notwithstanding this deficiency in the record, we have examined so much of it as is here and it is apparent that there was no genuine issue of material fact which would have prevented the trial judge from rendering the summary final judgment here complained of. Therefore, his actions are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Town OF Eatonville, 203 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…r to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 610; Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 668; Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 260. Petitioner has failed to supply a sufficient record. Certiorari denied. WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., and WADDELL, THOMAS R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Gleim v. Gleim, 176 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…s the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Belfield v. Lochner, Fla. App.1964, 162 So. 2d 668; Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 260; Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 90; Robinson v. Foland, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So. 2d 512. Failure to do so herein requires us to affirm the decision of the trial court. It is therefore Affirmed.…
-
Jones v. Kelly, 273 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…the trial judge’s instructions on the law to the facts of the case. Our review of the record before us convinces us that the limited record presented is not sufficient to demonstrate error. See Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 260. All other points have been reviewed and do not constitute reversible error. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- NIX v. Lake W. Koontz, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Otto DI Vosta and Verna Di Vosta v. Boam Corp., 110 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Jules Pearlman, 109 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)