Thomas v. State
Citations
- 36 Fla. 109
Syllabus
<p>1. The brief of plaintiff in error says: “ As to the first assignment of error, I shall pass without comment, but most respectfully call the attention of the court thereto Held, That this and other assignments submitted in like language were submitted without argument, and therefore considered abandoned.</p> <p>2. An assignment of error is, that “ the verdict of the jury is contrary to the instructions of the court as to the law of the case.” The only argument made upon this assignment of error is that the court is invited to read six pages of instructions and thirty pages of testimony, and compare them and ascertain if the-assignment íb not well founded : Held, That the court is not required to search a mass of matter for an error supposed to be in it; that all presumptions are in favor of the regularity of . the judgment below, until some error therein is specifically designated: Also held, That such an invitation to a court to-examine a voluminous record in search for error is no argument of the assignment of error; and that the same might be considered abandoned.</p> <p>3. The entire argument upon an assignment of error was as follows: “As to the sixth assignment I shall also pass, and ask the court's attention thereto: and when considered in connection with all the evidence in the case, I contend the same was grave error: ” Held, That a bare assertion that a ruling complamed of was error is no argument, and: tates no more than liad already been, stated in the assignment of error.</p> <p>4. When no more is stated in brief of counsel as to any assignment of error than a bare assertion that a ruling of the lower court was erroneous, no reasons being given, no principles of law stated, and no authorities cited, the assignment of error may be regarded as abandoned by reason of failure to argue the same, unless the error complained of is so glaring and patent from the record that no argument is needed to demonstrate it.</p> <p>5. The evidence in tins case examined
Judges: Liddon
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hoodless v. JerniganSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 82×
- Mathis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-01-15· cited 81×
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-01-15· cited 42×
- Charles v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1895-06-15· cited 26×
- Easterlin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-06-15· cited 16×
- Cannon v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-06-15· cited 16×
- Porter v. ParslowSupreme Court of Florida· 1897-01-15· cited 11×
- Jackson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-01-15· cited 6×
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-05-21· cited 4×
- Wall v. ShelleySupreme Court of Florida· 1895-06-15· cited 2×
- Varum v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1939-04-28
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.