Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

632 So. 2d 174

Ariko v. Nicholson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 11, 1994

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-02-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1998

1 state decisions

Relies on Ariko v. Nicholson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-02-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAUKSCH, Judge.

¶1ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF COST JUDGMENT

¶2Appellee seeks our review of an order awarding appeal costs to appellants. We have jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c).

¶3Appellants sought a new trial because they were denied an appeal of the trial they lost. This court awarded a new trial because the court reporter lost the trial notes in a house fire, and the record could not be reconstructed. See Ariko v. Nicholson, 606 So.2d 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Through no real fault of anyone the new trial must be had so that effective appellate review can be afforded the losing party. That decision to permit a retrial was not on the merits of the appeal but as a result of the unusual loss suffered by the court reporter. No party prevailed so neither is entitled to costs or fees yet. The time for cost awards will be at the conclusion of the appeal which follows the new trial.

¶4ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.

HARRIS, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.
/632/so2d/174 · .json · Public domain