Brown v. Perrine

855 So. 2d 157, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12491, 2003 WL 21981019
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 21, 2003·No. No. 1D02-4940·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

855 So. 2d 157 (Brown v. Perrine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Gerry
855 So. 2d 157 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)