Smith v. Rutherford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Rutherford

162 So. 3d 14, 2014 WL 1028259, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3758

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 2014

DocketNo. 1D12-3683

StatusPublished

This text of 162 So. 3d 14 (Smith v. Rutherford) 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

Smith v. Rutherford, 162 So. 3d 14, 2014 WL 1028259, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3758 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment for defendant is AFFIRMED. § 96.11(3)(i), Fla. Stat. We find this appeal to be frivolous and filed in bad faith. See § 57.085(9), Fla. Stat.

In addition, upon Appellant’s response to this court’s order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing this frivolous appeal and for abuse of the court’s processes by filing twenty-three other appeals to this court to date, we find that sanctions are appropriate. Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a). None of Appellant’s numerous appeals filed in this court has resulted in meaningful relief but all have required this court to devote its limited resources to processing and evaluating Appellant’s meritless claims. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008); Robenson v. McNeil, 39 So.3d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Walter N. Smith, DC #J04026, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

It is so ordered.

WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment for defendant is AFFIRMED. § 96.11(3)(i), Fla. Stat. We find this appeal to be frivolous and filed in bad faith. See § 57.085(9), Fla. Stat.

In addition, upon Appellant’s response to this court’s order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing this frivolous appeal and for abuse of the court’s processes by filing twenty-three other appeals to this court to date, we find that sanctions are appropriate. Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a). None of Appellant’s numerous appeals filed in this court has resulted in meaningful relief but all have required this court to devote its limited resources to processing and evaluating Appellant’s meritless claims. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008); Robenson v. McNeil, 39 So.3d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Walter N. Smith, DC #J04026, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

It is so ordered.

WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 3d 14, 2014 WL 1028259, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-rutherford-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack