City of Melbourne v. Floyd

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Melbourne v. Floyd

415 So. 2d 758, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20079

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1982

DocketNo. 82-360

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 415 So. 2d 758 (City of Melbourne v. Floyd) 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

City of Melbourne v. Floyd, 415 So. 2d 758, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20079 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

The petition for writ of certiorari seeking relief from an interlocutory order is dismissed on the ground that it was untimely filed. The trial court rendered an order overruling the petitioners’ objections to the respondents’ requests to produce the internal investigation report of the Melbourne Police Department containing the statement of a police officer involved in the accident, and thus requiring the petitioners to produce said document. The court’s order was interlocutory. The petitioners filed a motion for rehearing of the order in the lower court. The filing and pendency of such a motion does not toll the time for filing a petition for common law certiorari under Rule 9.100(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such a motion does not fall within Rule 9.020(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and does not toll the rendition date of the original order. Hofer v. Gil de Rubio, 409 So.2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Pender Peanut Co., 389 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Gordon v. Barley, 383 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DISMISSED.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

The petition for writ of certiorari seeking relief from an interlocutory order is dismissed on the ground that it was untimely filed. The trial court rendered an order overruling the petitioners’ objections to the respondents’ requests to produce the internal investigation report of the Melbourne Police Department containing the statement of a police officer involved in the accident, and thus requiring the petitioners to produce said document. The court’s order was interlocutory. The petitioners filed a motion for rehearing of the order in the lower court. The filing and pendency of such a motion does not toll the time for filing a petition for common law certiorari under Rule 9.100(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such a motion does not fall within Rule 9.020(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and does not toll the rendition date of the original order. Hofer v. Gil de Rubio, 409 So.2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Pender Peanut Co., 389 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Gordon v. Barley, 383 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DISMISSED.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 So. 2d 758, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-melbourne-v-floyd-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack