Morceau v. Meader

179 So. 2d 242
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 26, 1965
Docket65-180
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 179 So. 2d 242 (Morceau v. Meader) 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
Morceau v. Meader, 179 So. 2d 242 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

179 So.2d 242 (1965)

Linda MORCEAU, Appellant,
v.
Merle MEADER and Sandra Meader, a minor, Appellees.

No. 65-180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

October 26, 1965.

*243 Orman L. Hamilton, Miami, for appellant.

Wheeler & Evans, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

HENDRY, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff of an order granting appellee's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto as to punitive damages which were awarded plaintiff by a jury in an action brought by her against appellee and her minor daughter for conversion of plaintiff's poodle.

In this appeal we are asked to pass upon the propriety of the trial judge's entry of the judgment N.O.V. This we are unable to do because of the insufficiency of the record before us.

Where, as here, an appellant's points require a consideration of the record which was before the trial judge and where there is a failure to bring such record before the appellate court, the contentions of the appellant cannot be decided by an appellate court.[1]

When relief is sought from an appellate court, it thereupon becomes the duty of appellant to make errors complained of clearly to appear by furnishing the court with an adequate record of all the facts and circumstances pertinent to and connected with the asserted errors.[2]

The appellant having failed to meet these requirements, the judgment appealed must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

NOTES

[1] Gilson v. Murphy, Fearnley and Yawn, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 151 So.2d 447.

[2] Hoodless v. Jernigan, 51 Fla. 211, 41 So. 194 (1906).

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

Related

Brake v. Murphy
773 So. 2d 61 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Valdes v. Nateman
539 So. 2d 36 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
National Fishermen Producers Co-operative Society, Ltd., of Belize City v. State
503 So. 2d 430 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
NAT. FISHERMEN PROD. CO-OP. SOC. v. State
503 So. 2d 430 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Harmony Homes, Inc. v. Severud, Knight, Boerema, Buff
355 So. 2d 490 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Vender v. 7900 Red Road Partnership
346 So. 2d 1059 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Richardson v. Buchanan
267 So. 2d 695 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Bearden v. Greater Miami Beach Motel Ass'n
256 So. 2d 73 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Dimun Investment, Inc. v. Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Hialeah
249 So. 2d 63 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Shepherd v. Olympic Manufacturing Co.
206 So. 2d 228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Hennig v. Hennig
201 So. 2d 88 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Davis ex rel. Davis v. Zona
198 So. 2d 43 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 So. 2d 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morceau-v-meader-fladistctapp-1965.