MARTINA SPENCER, v. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT/BROADSPIRE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MARTINA SPENCER, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, v. CASE NO. 1D13-1703 FLORIDA POWER BROADSPIRE, LIGHT/ Appellees. _____________________________/ Opinion filed October 31, 2013. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Judge. Date of Accident: June 11, 2009. Martina Spencer, pro se, Appellant. Derrick Cox, Winter Park, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. On September 11, 2013, after receiving and reviewing Appellant s initial brief, this court entered an order advising the parties that this appeal is being considered for summary affirmance under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). Accordingly, the parties were directed to refrain from further briefing. Appellant filed a response to this court s preliminary summary affirmance order, arguing (in essence) that this case is not appropriate for summary affirmance because Appellant filed her brief in good faith and her arguments are meritorious. Under rule 9.315(a), summary affirmance is appropriate where the initial brief fails to present a preliminary basis for reversal, regardless of the good-faith intentions of the filing party. Because we conclude that Appellant s initial brief fails to demonstrate a preliminary legal or factual basis for the reversal of the appealed orders, we affirm the appealed orders under rule 9.315(a), and deny on the merits Appellant s motion requesting another means of disposition. AFFIRMED. VAN NORTWICK, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
