*1 850 4th App. Fla., Dist.
No. 82. Morris v. Florida. Kanner Richard Dist. Faircloth, Florida, General of
Earl Musgrove, Attorney General, W. Douglas Black, Mr. Justice with whom
joins, dissenting. again once case, certiorari in this the Court
By denying plain- automatically depriving practice sanctions the of their defenses or defendants tiffs their lawsuits file failed to some lawyers their have merely because This by Court rules. paper required within the time against which have punishment is a form of vicarious cases, protested in both civil and frequently States, 385 g., e. v. United See, but in vain. Santana Line, Pittsburgh Towing Barge Co. (1966); 848 v. U. S. Concrete Co. v. Atlantic (1966); 33 32, 385 U. S. Beaufort Co., Lord (1966); 1004 v. States Construction 384 U. S. Murchison, Helmandollar, Riess 383 v. (1966); U. S. 928 States, Berman 378 (1966); 383 946 U. S. U. S. Co., 626, v. Wabash R. 370 636 (1964); 530 U. S. Link my from Court’s order (1962). See also dissent Congress to the Federal transmitting to Amendments 1031, (1966). 383 1032 Rules, U. S. case, petitioner’s is a criminal where retained
This timely appeal. filed a notice of Petitioner appeal. hired to handle the Later, then appeal moved to dismiss the failure the State the defense prosecute, notifying attorney but petitioner who had been convicted. Petitioner’s further any failed to take and the court prejudice, with appeal thereby depriving dismissed petitioner Although review. never did receive notice from petitioner he court, from the when learned that his had been he asked the dismissed, quickly it, court to reinstate he never explaining that had been advised that the was not being actively prosecuted or that the State had moved to it, dismiss and stating that he had now retained *2 a new prepared who was proceed to promptly with the appeal. The court, without ever giving the defendant the benefit of opinion an explain to its denied his motion. Now this Court refuses to review and hold that this defendant should be the benefit given of the first and most important rule process, of due which requires notice to person a deprived before he is of his liberty or his property. would certiorari and grant hold that since Florida provides a of to criminal in general, defendants it is required give to this defendant an review before he is stigmatized as a criminal. course,
Of the average litigants, who rarely get into court, are not acquainted well with the qualifications of lawyers and they may poor select ones. Even there so, ais vast difference between, on the one hand, holding the litigant responsible for errors objecting to evidence or pleadings, and, on the other hand, holding litigant the responsible for complete failure to file papers and then without notice to litigant dismissing his entire case or defense. When a litigant hires a who has a state license to practice, he certainly has no reason suspect to that the State will reach into his pocket and make him money or pay away take his valuable cause of action because of lawyer’s neglect. his
Many people justify such state by action saying that litigant can his sue for malpractice. But long there is a distance filing between a malpractice suit winning and a damage against award an attorney for malpractice. Nor should courts render a judgment on the idea although based that they do a wrong ato he can litigant, recompensed be by a suit against his lawyer. There ais much simpler prob- solution to this malpractice lem than lawsuits. Instead of holding a for the civil a responsible litigant merely give can courts lawyer, the mistakes opportunity an and lawyer’s defaults notice litigant grant I would his case. present get reverse. and certiorari et al. Assn. Pilots Air Line et al. v. Acree Mar-
5thA.C. took no shall Jr., Warren Garter, L. Thomas Air J. Cohen Samuel
Gritzmacher Harlan, Smythe Gam- W. Glen Assn., and Line Pilots Lines, Air for Eastern Moye, Jr., A. brell, respondents. Inc., *3 Cl. Ct. States. 98. et al.
No. Amell part no took Marshall denied. Mr. Justice Certiorari Lee petition. or decision consideration Solicitor Scribner David Pressman Weisl, Attorney General Griswold, Assistant General the United Kopp for Rosenthal, E. and Robert Alan States. Kapatos C. A. 2d v. United 119. States.
No. part no took denied. Justice Marshall Mr. Certiorari Julius petition. of this decision consideration General petitioner. Solicitor Echeles Lucius Vinson, Beatrice General Griswold, Maysack for United G. Robert Rosenberg, and States. York. N. Y. App. v. New Cohen no took denied. Justice Marshall
Certiorari of this Koota Aaron Glosser Abraham Siegel for I. William