Baez v. Padron

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baez v. Padron

715 So. 2d 1128, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10767, 1998 WL 484602

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 1998

DocketNo. 98-619

StatusPublished

This text of 715 So. 2d 1128 (Baez v. Padron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baez v. Padron, 715 So. 2d 1128, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10767, 1998 WL 484602 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has the affirmative duty to present the appellate court with an adequate record for appellate review; indeed, this rudimentary principle is inseparably connected to and well grounded in appellate review. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.200(e); see also Seal Prods, v. Mansfield, 705 So.2d 973, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Van Den Boom v. YLB Invs., Inc., 687 So.2d 964, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Graham v. Lomar Indus., 583 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); McNair v. Pavlakos/McNair Dev. Co., 576 So.2d 933, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Thus, in the absence of an adequate record of the proceedings below, we cannot resolve the issues raised in this appeal. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); see also Bankers Ins. Co. v. Grenko, 707 So.2d 1185, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lederman v. Shore, 707 So.2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Rodwin-Pines v. Pines, 706 So.2d 946, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Accordingly, we must affirm the final judgment entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has the affirmative duty to present the appellate court with an adequate record for appellate review; indeed, this rudimentary principle is inseparably connected to and well grounded in appellate review. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.200(e); see also Seal Prods, v. Mansfield, 705 So.2d 973, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Van Den Boom v. YLB Invs., Inc., 687 So.2d 964, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Graham v. Lomar Indus., 583 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); McNair v. Pavlakos/McNair Dev. Co., 576 So.2d 933, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Thus, in the absence of an adequate record of the proceedings below, we cannot resolve the issues raised in this appeal. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); see also Bankers Ins. Co. v. Grenko, 707 So.2d 1185, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lederman v. Shore, 707 So.2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Rodwin-Pines v. Pines, 706 So.2d 946, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Accordingly, we must affirm the final judgment entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 So. 2d 1128, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10767, 1998 WL 484602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baez-v-padron-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack