Municipal Court ex rel. City of Coral Gables v. Giblin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Municipal Court ex rel. City of Coral Gables v. Giblin

126 So. 2d 285

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 1961

DocketNo. 60-615

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 126 So. 2d 285 (Municipal Court ex rel. City of Coral Gables v. Giblin) 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

Municipal Court ex rel. City of Coral Gables v. Giblin, 126 So. 2d 285 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is predicated upon appellants’ failure in its assignments of error to point out clearly and distinctly any alleged errors relied on for reversal.

This was an action in prohibition which resulted in a judgment awarding a peremptory writ. Prohibition has been classified as a common-law remedy. See State ex rel. Rheinauer v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 23 So. 575; Crill v. State Road Department, 96 Fla. 110, 117 So. 795. The appellants’ assignments of error are five in number. When viewed in their most favorable light, the assignments simply complain that the trial judge erred in entering the judgment. The assignments fail to point out the legal error occasioned by the entry of the judgment and, as stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. Adams, 55 Fla. 401, 45 So. 847, such an assignment “ * * * is too general to be considered, as it is broad enough to cover the whole record and every feature of the trial.” 3.5, subd. c, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. See Fawcett v. Weaver, 121 Fla. 245, 163 So. 561; Miami Investors Syndicate v. Johnnie & Mack, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 617. Cf. Durrance v. First National Bank & Trust Company of Orlando, 116 Fla. 526, 156 So. 526.

The motion to dismiss is granted and this appeal is dismissed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is predicated upon appellants’ failure in its assignments of error to point out clearly and distinctly any alleged errors relied on for reversal.

This was an action in prohibition which resulted in a judgment awarding a peremptory writ. Prohibition has been classified as a common-law remedy. See State ex rel. Rheinauer v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 23 So. 575; Crill v. State Road Department, 96 Fla. 110, 117 So. 795. The appellants’ assignments of error are five in number. When viewed in their most favorable light, the assignments simply complain that the trial judge erred in entering the judgment. The assignments fail to point out the legal error occasioned by the entry of the judgment and, as stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. Adams, 55 Fla. 401, 45 So. 847, such an assignment “ * * * is too general to be considered, as it is broad enough to cover the whole record and every feature of the trial.” 3.5, subd. c, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. See Fawcett v. Weaver, 121 Fla. 245, 163 So. 561; Miami Investors Syndicate v. Johnnie & Mack, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 617. Cf. Durrance v. First National Bank & Trust Company of Orlando, 116 Fla. 526, 156 So. 526.

The motion to dismiss is granted and this appeal is dismissed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 So. 2d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/municipal-court-ex-rel-city-of-coral-gables-v-giblin-fladistctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack