Manis v. Prudhomme

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manis v. Prudhomme

278 So. 2d 292, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8039

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 1973

DocketNo. 72-280

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 So. 2d 292 (Manis v. Prudhomme) 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

Manis v. Prudhomme, 278 So. 2d 292, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8039 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant applied for a continuance of the trial in a personal injury action because a key witness had been subpoenaed and failed to appear. Critical to the disposition of the appeal is a showing in the record that the witness was in fact served with a witness subpoena. Such subpoena and return of service is not in our appellate record and, hence, we are unable to determine that the trial court actually abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a continuance. The duty of affirmatively demonstrating error is upon the aggrieved party, the appellant. City of North Miami v. Benjamin, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 753. Likewise, it is his duty to perfect the appellate record. Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 86; Gulf Heating & Refrigeration Co. v. Iowa Mutual Ins. Co., Fla.1966, 193 So.2d 4.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ„ and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant applied for a continuance of the trial in a personal injury action because a key witness had been subpoenaed and failed to appear. Critical to the disposition of the appeal is a showing in the record that the witness was in fact served with a witness subpoena. Such subpoena and return of service is not in our appellate record and, hence, we are unable to determine that the trial court actually abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a continuance. The duty of affirmatively demonstrating error is upon the aggrieved party, the appellant. City of North Miami v. Benjamin, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 753. Likewise, it is his duty to perfect the appellate record. Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 86; Gulf Heating & Refrigeration Co. v. Iowa Mutual Ins. Co., Fla.1966, 193 So.2d 4.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ„ and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 So. 2d 292, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manis-v-prudhomme-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack