Antonacci v. Antonacci

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Antonacci v. Antonacci

130 So. 3d 261, 2013 WL 6480825, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19583

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-4551

StatusPublished

This text of 130 So. 3d 261 (Antonacci v. Antonacci) 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

Antonacci v. Antonacci, 130 So. 3d 261, 2013 WL 6480825, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19583 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the non-final order awarding temporary time-sharing to Ap-pellee during Appellant’s overseas deployment pursuant to military orders. We dismiss the appeal as moot. While we agree the issue is capable of repetition, the merits of the argument need not be addressed because we conclude that Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the issue raised, if repeated, is likely to evade appellate review. See L.W.T. v. A.W., 770 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (dismissing appeal as moot where appellant failed to specifically describe the questions of great public importance or how the particular facts of the case were likely to recur yet evade appellate review). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as moot.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and MAKAR, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the non-final order awarding temporary time-sharing to Ap-pellee during Appellant’s overseas deployment pursuant to military orders. We dismiss the appeal as moot. While we agree the issue is capable of repetition, the merits of the argument need not be addressed because we conclude that Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the issue raised, if repeated, is likely to evade appellate review. See L.W.T. v. A.W., 770 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (dismissing appeal as moot where appellant failed to specifically describe the questions of great public importance or how the particular facts of the case were likely to recur yet evade appellate review). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as moot.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and MAKAR, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 So. 3d 261, 2013 WL 6480825, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonacci-v-antonacci-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack