Conrath v. Orange County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Conrath v. Orange County

605 So. 2d 1020, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10701, 1992 WL 281870

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 1992

DocketNo. 92-1718

StatusPublished

This text of 605 So. 2d 1020 (Conrath v. Orange County) 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

Conrath v. Orange County, 605 So. 2d 1020, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10701, 1992 WL 281870 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

COWART, Judge.

The parties, during the course of the litigation below, entered into a settlement agreement following mediation. The trial court by order approved this settlement agreement and explicitly ruled that it is binding upon all the parties, including the appellant Conrath. The trial court, however, did not in its order dismiss the lawsuit. The appellant, after unsuccessfully moving for rehearing, filed a notice of appeal directed to this non-final order. See S.L.T. Warehouse v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974). The appeal, however, is untimely and is hereby dismissed. See Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, 263 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972); Gordon v. Barley, 383 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA1980) (motion for rehearing tolls rendition of only final orders for purposes of filing notice of appeal).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

COWART, Judge.

The parties, during the course of the litigation below, entered into a settlement agreement following mediation. The trial court by order approved this settlement agreement and explicitly ruled that it is binding upon all the parties, including the appellant Conrath. The trial court, however, did not in its order dismiss the lawsuit. The appellant, after unsuccessfully moving for rehearing, filed a notice of appeal directed to this non-final order. See S.L.T. Warehouse v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974). The appeal, however, is untimely and is hereby dismissed. See Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, 263 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972); Gordon v. Barley, 383 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA1980) (motion for rehearing tolls rendition of only final orders for purposes of filing notice of appeal).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 So. 2d 1020, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10701, 1992 WL 281870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conrath-v-orange-county-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack