THE CARTER CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE ALBANESE COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, 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 dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to file their main brief within the required timeframe, indicating abandonment of the appeal. The court granted the appellee's motion to dismiss.
Yes, the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant's failure to file their main brief constitutes a flagrant violation of the rules and indicates abandonment of the appeal.
“Under the circumstances it must be held that appellant is in flagrant violation of the rules of appellate procedure and must be considered to have abandoned this appeal.”
Establishes the court's conclusion regarding the appellant's failure to comply with rules.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and directions for the record. However, the appellant failed to file and serve their main brief by the d…
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 Abandonment Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on appel-lee’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
Notice of appeal was timely filed in this cause on March 8, 1965, followed by the timely filing of assignments of error and directions to the clerk for making up the record on appeal. Under Rule 3.7(a), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., appellant’s main brief was required to be filed and served at least forty days before the date on which the record on appeal was required to be filed in this Court. Under the time limitations set by the rules appellant was required to file and serve its main brief not later than May 18, 1965. No brief has yet been filed or served by appellant, nor has the date for doing so been extended by order of the trial court or this Court. Under the circumstances it must be held that appellant is in flagrant violation of the rules of appellate procedure and must be considered to have abandoned this appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal is accordingly granted and the appeal should stand dismissed at the cost of appellant. See Graham v. Thornton, (Fla.App.1958), 104 So.2d 95; Nitsos v. Carlisle, (Fla.App. 1958) 104 So. 2d 144.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Gray Line Boats, Inc. v. Madison Sales Corp., 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…Affirmed. See: Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 394; Southeastern Sales & Service Co. v. T. T. Watson, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 239;. Wise v. Quina, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 590; Jackson Grain Company v. Kemp, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 513; 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings, § 80.…
-
Leila J. Evans v. Parker, 440 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…h cannot properly be raised by a motion to dismiss unless the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of such defense to bar the action. Rule 1.110(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; e.g., Jackson Grain Co. v. Kemp, 177 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Glass v. Armstrong, 330 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); 40 Fla.Jur.2d, Pleadings, §§ 171,172. For this reason, we must analyze Barr’s pleadings, construing the allegations most favorably to her position, to see if these defenses s…
-
Miami Gray Line Boats, Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 195 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…Affirmed. See: Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 394; Southeastern Sales & Service Co. v. T. T. Watson, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 239; Wise v. Quina, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 590; Jackson Grain Company v. Kemp, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 513; 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings, § 80.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Graham v. Mammie Thornton, 104 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Nitsos v. Carlisle, 104 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)