Alamarante Fire District v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alamarante Fire District v. Smith

939 So. 2d 178, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16526, 2006 WL 2827368

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 5, 2006

DocketNo. 1D06-3118

StatusPublished

This text of 939 So. 2d 178 (Alamarante Fire District v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alamarante Fire District v. Smith, 939 So. 2d 178, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16526, 2006 WL 2827368 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to the Court’s order of July 12, 2006, the Court has determined that the formal issuance of the writ relates to enforcement of the order, and that the court’s failure to issue the writ therefore does not interfere with the finality of the order granting writ of mandamus. Cf. GEICO Financial Servs., Inc. v. Kramer, 575 So.2d 1345, 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, it is also the Court’s conclusion that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The circuit court’s republication of its order granting writ of mandamus without any change in substance from the original final order did not accomplish the court’s apparent goal of providing an extension of time for seeking appellate review. See, e.g., Thermoplastic & Signs, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 746 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed as untimely, without prejudice to the institution of appropriate proceedings under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.

KAHN, BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to the Court’s order of July 12, 2006, the Court has determined that the formal issuance of the writ relates to enforcement of the order, and that the court’s failure to issue the writ therefore does not interfere with the finality of the order granting writ of mandamus. Cf. GEICO Financial Servs., Inc. v. Kramer, 575 So.2d 1345, 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, it is also the Court’s conclusion that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The circuit court’s republication of its order granting writ of mandamus without any change in substance from the original final order did not accomplish the court’s apparent goal of providing an extension of time for seeking appellate review. See, e.g., Thermoplastic & Signs, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 746 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed as untimely, without prejudice to the institution of appropriate proceedings under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.

KAHN, BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

939 So. 2d 178, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16526, 2006 WL 2827368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alamarante-fire-district-v-smith-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack