Steeprow v. Penfold

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Steeprow v. Penfold

200 So. 3d 136, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7306, 2016 WL 2760159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 2016

Docket5D15-3967

StatusPublished

This text of 200 So. 3d 136 (Steeprow v. Penfold) 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

Steeprow v. Penfold, 200 So. 3d 136, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7306, 2016 WL 2760159 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth G. Steeprow appeals a final judgment entered against him in his automobile negligence claim against Michael R. Penfold. The final judgment was entered after the trial court granted Mr. Penfold’s motion for a directed verdict during a jury trial. Mr. Steeprow asserts that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict and in making certain evidentiary rulings during the trial. We affirm.

As the appellant, Mr. Steeprow has the burden of demonstrating error. Because no transcript of the proceedings exists, our review is limited to the pleadings, judgment and other matters contained in the record. In the absence of an adequate transcript on appeal, a judgment, which is not fundamentally erroneous, must be affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Mr. Steeprow also has not complied with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), which governs the preparation of a record when no transcript of the proceedings is available. Because no reversible error has been demonstrated from the record provided to us, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth G. Steeprow appeals a final judgment entered against him in his automobile negligence claim against Michael R. Penfold. The final judgment was entered after the trial court granted Mr. Penfold’s motion for a directed verdict during a jury trial. Mr. Steeprow asserts that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict and in making certain evidentiary rulings during the trial. We affirm.

As the appellant, Mr. Steeprow has the burden of demonstrating error. Because no transcript of the proceedings exists, our review is limited to the pleadings, judgment and other matters contained in the record. In the absence of an adequate transcript on appeal, a judgment, which is not fundamentally erroneous, must be affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Mr. Steeprow also has not complied with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), which governs the preparation of a record when no transcript of the proceedings is available. Because no reversible error has been demonstrated from the record provided to us, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 3d 136, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7306, 2016 WL 2760159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steeprow-v-penfold-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack