Golden Gate Development Co. v. Ritchie

Supreme Court of Florida

Golden Gate Development Co. v. Ritchie

183 So. 845, 134 Fla. 423, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1120

DecidedOctober 18, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 183 So. 845 (Golden Gate Development Co. v. Ritchie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Golden Gate Development Co. v. Ritchie, 183 So. 845, 134 Fla. 423, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1120 (Fla. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause is here on motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appellant has failed to comply with Sub-s'ections (c) and (f) of Rule 20 of this Court controlling the manner of preparing briefs to be filed in this Court. An examination has been made of the brief and while the same fails to meet the requirements of the Rule and is otherwise subject to the criticism appearing in *424 the motion, we have observed a request on the part of counsel for appellees for an oral argument, and under the circumstances of this cas'e, we have concluded that it would be expedient to withhold a ruling on the motion to dismiss until after the case is heard on oral argument, when the entire record can, be considered by this Court on its merits.

It is so ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause is here on motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appellant has failed to comply with Sub-s'ections (c) and (f) of Rule 20 of this Court controlling the manner of preparing briefs to be filed in this Court. An examination has been made of the brief and while the same fails to meet the requirements of the Rule and is otherwise subject to the criticism appearing in *424 the motion, we have observed a request on the part of counsel for appellees for an oral argument, and under the circumstances of this cas'e, we have concluded that it would be expedient to withhold a ruling on the motion to dismiss until after the case is heard on oral argument, when the entire record can, be considered by this Court on its merits.

It is so ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 845, 134 Fla. 423, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-gate-development-co-v-ritchie-fla-1938.