Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Pender Peanut Co.

Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Pender Peanut Co.

389 So. 2d 7, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17808
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 17, 1980
DocketNo. UU-145
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 389 So. 2d 7 (Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Pender Peanut Co.) 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
Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Pender Peanut Co., 389 So. 2d 7, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17808 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sua sponte, this Court dismisses the appeal on the ground that it was untimely filed. The order appealed from is an order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for [8]*8improper venue. Such an order is interlocutory, and a motion to reconsider its entry is not authorized by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530(a). Thus, the filing and pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the time for taking an appeal. “M ” Enterprises, Inc. v. Baumgartner, 362 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.

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

Related

City of Melbourne v. Floyd
415 So. 2d 758 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 So. 2d 7, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alimenta-usa-inc-v-pender-peanut-co-fladistctapp-1980.