CONDOR MERRITT, APPELLANT,
v.
EARL UNKEFER AND HUNT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 provide an adequate record for the court to review the merits of the appellees' motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.
Yes, the motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted because the appellant has now provided a sufficient record, allowing the court to review the merits of the motion to dismiss.
“It appears that on May 8, 1968, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by appellees, Unkefer and Hunt Construction Company, Inc., for the reason that movants had failed to furnish an adequate record, namely, the amended counterclaim, whereby this court could assay the merits of said motion by examining the number of counts and the content of the counterclaim.”
Explains the initial reason for denying the motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees, Unkefer and Hunt Construction Company, Inc., filed motions to dismiss the appeal. Initially, the court denied these motions because the…
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 Adequate Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears that on May 8, 1968, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by ap-
pellees, Unkefer and Hunt Construction Company, Inc., for the reason that mo-vants had failed to furnish an adequate record, namely, the amended counterclaim, whereby this court could assay the merits of said motion by examining the number of counts and the content of the counterclaim. Said appellees have renewed their motion and now with sufficient record same should be granted upon authority of Midstate Hauling Company, Inc. v. Mutual Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So. 2d 826. Therefore, it is
Ordered that appellant’s motion to strike, filed September 26, 1968, is hereby denied; further, ordered that motions to dismiss filed by Appellee-Unkefer and Appellee-Hunt Construction Company, Inc. on September 13, 1968, are hereby granted and this appeal commenced by notice filed March 22, 1968, in Case No. 60319 of the Circuit Court for Orange County, Murray W. Overstreet, Judge, is hereby dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Midstate Hauling Co., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 189 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)