ROOD COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Rood Company appealed a summary judgment order granted in favor of the Board of Public Instruction of Dade County. The Florida Supreme Court denied the Board's motion to affirm, finding the motion insufficient under Rule 38 because it failed to clearly and concisely identify the specific unsubstantial questions at issue with appropriate record references.
The Board's motion to affirm was wholly insufficient under Rule 38 and was denied. The movant bears the burden of pointing out clearly and concisely, with appropriate record references, the exact matter on which it bases its conclusion that the questions raised are unsubstantial, and must sustain its grounds through argument in its brief and oral argument.
“the appellee is required, when proceeding under Rule 38, to 'set forth clearly and concisely the matter on which (his motion) is based.' This provision of the rule is not complied with by merely asserting in the motion 'that it is manifest that the questions on which the decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument,'”
Establishes the requirement that movant must affirmatively set forth clear and concise grounds with specificity, not mere conclusory assertions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRood Company filed a complaint against the Board of Public Instruction of Dade County. The Board filed a motion for summary final decree, supported by…
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.
DREW, Chief Justice.
The appellee has moved to affirm the judgment in this cause under Rule 38, 31 F.S.A., upon the following grounds:
“1. That it is manifest that the questions on which the decision of this cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument in the following respects:
“(a) That this cause is being appealed before this Honorable Court upon the Appellant’s Complaint, Appellee’s Answer thereto, Appellant’s Interrogatories, Ap-pellee’s Answer to Interrogatories, Appel-lee’s Motion for Summary Final Decree and the supporting and opposing affidavits filed in connection therewith by the respective parties of record. Specifically, the Appellant filed its appeal from the order of the Trial Court granting the Appellee’s Motion for Summary Final Decree.
“(b) There is no genuine issue as to any material fact involved in the controversy.
“(c) That upon the pleadings herein-above referred to, the Appellee is entitled as a matter of law to have its Motion for Summary Final Decree granted.”
Such motion is wholly insufficient under Rule 38 and under the pronouncement of this Court in Joseph T. Miller Construction Co. v. Borak, Fla., 82 So. 2d 147, 149, where we set down at considerable length the procedure to be followed when this rule was to be invoked. We stated there:
“As will be noted, the appellee is required, when proceeding under Rule 38, to ‘set forth clearly and concisely the matter on which (his motion) is based.’ This provision of the rule is not complied with by merely asserting in the motion ‘that it is manifest that the questions on which the decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument,’ for the duty rests upon the movant to point out ‘clearly and concisely’, with appropriate references to the record-on-appeal, the appellant’s brief, or the appendix, the exact matter on which he bases his conclusion that the questions raised are unsubstantial. Moreover, the burden rests upon the movant to sustain the grounds of his motion by the argument in his brief, and by his oral argument, if oral argument is requested. Rule 39, subd. 3, Supreme Court Rules.”
The motion to affirm is denied.
We reaffirm what we said in the foregoing case and think it timely to point out again the burden placed upon the mov-ant to point out “clearly and concisely” the exact matter on which he bases his conclusion that the questions raised are unsubstantial. Failure to comply with this rule will result in summary disposition of these motions.
THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., and ROWE, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rood Co., Inc. v. The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Dade Cnty., 102 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1958)
-
Morris v. Rabara, 145 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…a motion the court makes only a cursory and superficial examination of the record and briefs to determine whether or not questions are presented which may be considered debatable. Rood Company v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 21; Joseph T. Miller Construction Co. v. Borak, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 147. The appellee wholly failed to carry this unusually heavy burden. Subsequently, appellee filed her supplemental motion to dismiss upon the ground that the appellant had been adjud…
Authorities Cited
- Joseph T. Miller Constr. Co., Inc. v. Seymour H. Borak, 82 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1955)