State v. Hardy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hardy

105 So. 2d 385

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 2, 1958

DocketNo. 413

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 So. 2d 385 (State v. Hardy) 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

State v. Hardy, 105 So. 2d 385 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellee, defendant below in a criminal cause, has moved for an extension of time in which to file brief on appeal. Under the rule the brief is due October 7, 19S8. The cause shown for the motion is that ap-pellee’s attorney of record “has been engaged in a political campaign for the past three (3) months and for this reason has not had an opportunity to work on the brief or the amendment to the brief.”

The reason assigned is not good cause for the requested delay. Incalculable mischief and inordinate delay in the disposition of criminal appeals would unquestionably result if a contrary view were adopted. The fallacy of accepting movant’s ground for extension becomes evident when it is considered that political campaigns extend from the time that one announces his candidacy until the very day of the general election and that there is nothing to prevent the elected person from immediately announcing his intention to seek reelection.

We have endeavored to impress upon members of the bar and court officials the importance of full compliance with the [386]*386rules of procedure. Relaxation of those rules makes for sloppy advocacy and disrespect for the courts as well as for the laws they are charged with upholding.

For the reasons stated the motion for extension of time will necessarily be denied.

STURGIS, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD, J., and O’CONNELL, STEPHEN C., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellee, defendant below in a criminal cause, has moved for an extension of time in which to file brief on appeal. Under the rule the brief is due October 7, 19S8. The cause shown for the motion is that ap-pellee’s attorney of record “has been engaged in a political campaign for the past three (3) months and for this reason has not had an opportunity to work on the brief or the amendment to the brief.”

The reason assigned is not good cause for the requested delay. Incalculable mischief and inordinate delay in the disposition of criminal appeals would unquestionably result if a contrary view were adopted. The fallacy of accepting movant’s ground for extension becomes evident when it is considered that political campaigns extend from the time that one announces his candidacy until the very day of the general election and that there is nothing to prevent the elected person from immediately announcing his intention to seek reelection.

We have endeavored to impress upon members of the bar and court officials the importance of full compliance with the [386]*386rules of procedure. Relaxation of those rules makes for sloppy advocacy and disrespect for the courts as well as for the laws they are charged with upholding.

For the reasons stated the motion for extension of time will necessarily be denied.

STURGIS, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD, J., and O’CONNELL, STEPHEN C., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hardy-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack