D.S. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.S. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

213 So. 3d 963, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15404

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 2015

DocketNo. 1D15-3897

StatusPublished

This text of 213 So. 3d 963 (D.S. v. Florida Department of Children & Families) 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

D.S. v. Florida Department of Children & Families, 213 So. 3d 963, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15404 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of September 28, 2015, the Court has determined that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the appeal was timely filed. See St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So.2d 27 (Fla.1971); Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So.2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“An amendment or modification of an order or judgment in an immaterial, insubstantial way does not restart the clock to file an appeal”). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Any remedy the appellant may have lies [964]*964with the lower tribunal. See In the Interest of E.H., 609 So.2d 1289 (Fla.1992).

BENTON, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of September 28, 2015, the Court has determined that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the appeal was timely filed. See St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So.2d 27 (Fla.1971); Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So.2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“An amendment or modification of an order or judgment in an immaterial, insubstantial way does not restart the clock to file an appeal”). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Any remedy the appellant may have lies [964]*964with the lower tribunal. See In the Interest of E.H., 609 So.2d 1289 (Fla.1992).

BENTON, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 So. 3d 963, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ds-v-florida-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack