Greene v. Hoiriis, 57-130
| Decision Date | 15 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 57-130,57-130 |
| Citation | 103 So.2d 226 |
| Parties | Effie M. GREENE, Appellant, v. Dean HOIRIIS and Evelyn Hoiriis, his wife, doing business as Dean's Famous Waffle Shop, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Von Arx, Von Arx & Hope, Miami, for appellant.
Waltman & Cohen, Miami, for appellees.
Appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court brings for review a summary final judgment for defendant, assigning as errors the entry of summary final judgment and the entry of an order striking paragraph seven of plaintiff's amended complaint. The appellant not having brought to this court a sufficient record for a review of the summary final judgment and further no error by reason of the order striking a portion of the amended complaint having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
The gist of the amended complaint was a claim that the plaintiff had been discredited and placed in disrepute by alleged false accusations made by the defendants, former employers. Appellant poses the following question as her first point: 'May depositions which were filed but which were never opened, offered, nor admitted into evidence, properly be considered by the trial court upon motion for summary final judgment?' A reference to 30 F.S.A. Rule 1.36(c), 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure, reveals the following language: 'The judgment or decree sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or decree as a matter of law.' (Emphasis supplied.) The final summary judgment entered affirmatively states that the depositions were considered. Since the depositions were filed and were considered the requirements of the rule have been met.
All of appellant's remaining points, except the last which is hereinafter discussed, require a consideration of the depositions to determine whether there was an issue of fact presented to the trial judge. These depositions were not included in the record transmitted to this court. It is incumbent upon the appellant to bring to the appellate court the record necessary for a consideration of her appeal. Marshall v. State, 32 Fla. 462, 14 So. 92; Nelson v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 832. See 31 F.S.A. Rules 3.6(b), (d)(1), Florida Appellate Rules.
Appellant's remaining point is based upon an assignment of error directed to the order of the trial judge which struck the following paragraph of the amended complaint:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon
...v. General Motors Corp., 372 Mich. 542, 127 N.W.2d 357 (1964); Krenek v. Able, 594 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Civ.App.1980). See Greene v. Hoiriis, 103 So.2d 226 (Fla.App.1958). The statute is based on the long-standing common law rule that communications uttered or published in the course of judicial......
-
Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of State of Fla. v. Toffel, 2259
...124 So.2d 512; Broward County Port Authority for Use and Benefit of v. F. M. Rule & Co., Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 82; Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 226. We re-emphasize that the record is wholly devoid of anything to show what eventuated at the hearing before the It is additiona......
-
Smith v. Town of Golden Beach
...Board. This record is privileged and exempt from Florida Public Records Disclosure Act, § 443.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1979), Greene v. Hoiriis, 103 So.2d 226 (Fla.3d DCA 1958), and is not public disclosure as required by Bishop v. Wood, supra. Cf. Purdy v. Cole, supra (court found a liberty inter......
-
Milliner v. Enck
...benefits are absolutely privileged. Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc., 37 Conn.Supp. 38, 429 A.2d 492 (1980); Greene v. Hoiriis, 103 So.2d 226, (Fla.App.1958) (same); Sias v. General Motors Corp., 372 Mich. 542, 127 N.W.2d 357 (1964) (same).2 A conditional privilege may be overcome by sho......