Solomon v. Hunt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Solomon v. Hunt

243 So. 2d 185

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 1971

DocketNo. 70-802

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 243 So. 2d 185 (Solomon v. Hunt) 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

Solomon v. Hunt, 243 So. 2d 185 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order holding that appellant was in contempt for his failure to comply with a prior order of the court. The order which is appealed further granted to appellant five days within which to comply with the prior order. The only point presented on this appeal urges that the appellant was not given an adequate notice of the hearing at which the second order was entered.

The appellant made no effort to present any defense to the appealed order during the five day grace period or thereafter. We think that under those circumstances the point claiming inadequacy of the notice of the hearing at which the appealed order was entered does not present prejudicial error. It is the duty of a party resorting to an appellate court to make the errors complained of clearly appear, if they in truth exist. Henry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 64 So. 745 (1914).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order holding that appellant was in contempt for his failure to comply with a prior order of the court. The order which is appealed further granted to appellant five days within which to comply with the prior order. The only point presented on this appeal urges that the appellant was not given an adequate notice of the hearing at which the second order was entered.

The appellant made no effort to present any defense to the appealed order during the five day grace period or thereafter. We think that under those circumstances the point claiming inadequacy of the notice of the hearing at which the appealed order was entered does not present prejudicial error. It is the duty of a party resorting to an appellate court to make the errors complained of clearly appear, if they in truth exist. Henry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 64 So. 745 (1914).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 So. 2d 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-hunt-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack