Brown v. Perrine

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brown v. Perrine

855 So. 2d 157, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12491, 2003 WL 21981019

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-4940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 855 So. 2d 157 (Brown v. Perrine) 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

Brown v. Perrine, 855 So. 2d 157, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12491, 2003 WL 21981019 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s responses to this Court’s orders of May 23, 2003, and June 16, 2003, as well as the appellee’s reply filed on June 6, 2003, the appeal is hereby dismissed as untimely. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b). The appellant brought an original petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the appellee, in his official capacity, to perform a legal duty. Because the petition did not seek review of agency action, the civil rules of procedure, rather than the appellate rules of procedure were controlling. Cf. Newell v. Moore, 826 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Under these rules, the appellant’s motion for rehearing was not timely, therefore, it did not delay rendition of the order on appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s responses to this Court’s orders of May 23, 2003, and June 16, 2003, as well as the appellee’s reply filed on June 6, 2003, the appeal is hereby dismissed as untimely. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b). The appellant brought an original petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the appellee, in his official capacity, to perform a legal duty. Because the petition did not seek review of agency action, the civil rules of procedure, rather than the appellate rules of procedure were controlling. Cf. Newell v. Moore, 826 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Under these rules, the appellant’s motion for rehearing was not timely, therefore, it did not delay rendition of the order on appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

855 So. 2d 157, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12491, 2003 WL 21981019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-perrine-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack