Benz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benz v. State

346 So. 2d 1081

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1977

DocketNo. CC-253

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 346 So. 2d 1081 (Benz v. State) 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

Benz v. State, 346 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By prior order of this Court this case was scheduled for oral argument on May 26, 1977. Prior to oral argument, the Court discovered its jurisdiction to be questionable and thereupon issued an order directing the parties to be prepared to argue the jurisdictional issue at the same time argument on the merits had been scheduled. Having now considered the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel, the Court determines that if the Court had jurisdiction affirmance would nevertheless be required because appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error. However, we may not reach that point because we determine that as a result of untimely filing of the notice of appeal jurisdiction has never vested in this Court. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

BOYER, C. J., MILLS & ERVIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By prior order of this Court this case was scheduled for oral argument on May 26, 1977. Prior to oral argument, the Court discovered its jurisdiction to be questionable and thereupon issued an order directing the parties to be prepared to argue the jurisdictional issue at the same time argument on the merits had been scheduled. Having now considered the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel, the Court determines that if the Court had jurisdiction affirmance would nevertheless be required because appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error. However, we may not reach that point because we determine that as a result of untimely filing of the notice of appeal jurisdiction has never vested in this Court. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

BOYER, C. J., MILLS & ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 So. 2d 1081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benz-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack