Albert v. Carey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Albert v. Carey

120 So. 2d 189, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2516

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1960

DocketNo. 60-25

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 120 So. 2d 189 (Albert v. Carey) 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

Albert v. Carey, 120 So. 2d 189, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2516 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on upon a motion to quash the appeal. An examination of the record revealed that a summary final judgment in favor of the plaintiff was recorded on the 29th day of October 1959. On November 6, 1959, the defendant filed a petition for rehearing and on November 23, 1959, an amended petition for rehearing. On December 30, 1959, the trial judge entered an order denying petition for rehearing. Thereafter on the 8th day of January 1960, the defendant filed its notice of appeal. This notice recites that the appeal is from the summary final judgment recorded October 29, 1959, and is to review the order denying the petition for rehearing.

[190]*190We hold we are without jurisdiction to proceed. It is apparent that we cannot review the summary judgment since the notice of appeal was filed 71 days after the entry of said judgment. Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 3.2, subd. b, 31 F.S.A.

It is also clear that the proceedings in the nature of a petition for rehearing after the entry of the summary judgment were without legal effect. Weisberg v. Perl, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 56; Counne v. Saffan, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 586; La Joie v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., Fla. App.1959, 108 So.2d 497. Since such proceedings were without effect, they could not operate to extend the appeal period. The appeal must be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on upon a motion to quash the appeal. An examination of the record revealed that a summary final judgment in favor of the plaintiff was recorded on the 29th day of October 1959. On November 6, 1959, the defendant filed a petition for rehearing and on November 23, 1959, an amended petition for rehearing. On December 30, 1959, the trial judge entered an order denying petition for rehearing. Thereafter on the 8th day of January 1960, the defendant filed its notice of appeal. This notice recites that the appeal is from the summary final judgment recorded October 29, 1959, and is to review the order denying the petition for rehearing.

[190]*190We hold we are without jurisdiction to proceed. It is apparent that we cannot review the summary judgment since the notice of appeal was filed 71 days after the entry of said judgment. Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 3.2, subd. b, 31 F.S.A.

It is also clear that the proceedings in the nature of a petition for rehearing after the entry of the summary judgment were without legal effect. Weisberg v. Perl, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 56; Counne v. Saffan, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 586; La Joie v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., Fla. App.1959, 108 So.2d 497. Since such proceedings were without effect, they could not operate to extend the appeal period. The appeal must be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 2d 189, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-v-carey-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack