Toney v. Allstate Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Toney v. Allstate Insurance

291 So. 2d 658, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6097

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 1973

DocketNo. T-127

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 So. 2d 658 (Toney v. Allstate Insurance) 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

Toney v. Allstate Insurance, 291 So. 2d 658, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6097 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

On Motion for Extension of Time

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s attorney has moved for an extension of time “ . . .to allow him to and including November 19, 1973, to file his brief in this cause and to allow the ap-pellees to and including January 17, 1974, to file their briefs in this cause, on the ground that all parties hereto have agreed to such an extension of time for the reason that the size of the Record in this cause and the demands of other matters pertaining to their respective practices will necessitate such an extension of time. . . . ”

This is the fourth extension of time that has been requested in this Court by appellant’s attorney for filing a brief on behalf of his client. Our docket reflects several extensions of time granted by the trial court for completion of the record on appeal. As to the instant motion, Appellant certified that he mailed same on October 26, 1973, as-sumedly being well aware that his brief was due in this Court on October 29, 1973, as a result of this Court having granted his third requested extension of time.

The courts are oftentimes censored by our citizens for the inordinate delay in resolving their grievances. The instant motion symbolizes one of the primary delays encountered by litigants in seeking to reach the end of the road of justice. This Court [659]*659cannot countenance such unreasonable requests although, apparently, agreed to by the attorneys for the parties.

The motion is denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

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

On Motion for Extension of Time

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s attorney has moved for an extension of time “ . . .to allow him to and including November 19, 1973, to file his brief in this cause and to allow the ap-pellees to and including January 17, 1974, to file their briefs in this cause, on the ground that all parties hereto have agreed to such an extension of time for the reason that the size of the Record in this cause and the demands of other matters pertaining to their respective practices will necessitate such an extension of time. . . . ”

This is the fourth extension of time that has been requested in this Court by appellant’s attorney for filing a brief on behalf of his client. Our docket reflects several extensions of time granted by the trial court for completion of the record on appeal. As to the instant motion, Appellant certified that he mailed same on October 26, 1973, as-sumedly being well aware that his brief was due in this Court on October 29, 1973, as a result of this Court having granted his third requested extension of time.

The courts are oftentimes censored by our citizens for the inordinate delay in resolving their grievances. The instant motion symbolizes one of the primary delays encountered by litigants in seeking to reach the end of the road of justice. This Court [659]*659cannot countenance such unreasonable requests although, apparently, agreed to by the attorneys for the parties.

The motion is denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 So. 2d 658, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toney-v-allstate-insurance-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack