Gelinas v. City of South Miami
522 So. 2d 104, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 747, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1113, 1988 WL 24803
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 22, 1988
DocketNo. 87-1207
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 522 So. 2d 104 (Gelinas v. City of South Miami) 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
Gelinas v. City of South Miami, 522 So. 2d 104, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 747, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1113, 1988 WL 24803 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).
Opinion
ON RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
The respondent’s renewed motion to dismiss is granted on the authority of Paul v. City of Miami Beach, 519 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 518 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). As in both cases we certify the question presented:
WHEN A PARTY SEEKS APPELLATE REVIEW OF A NON-APPEALABLE ORDER, AND ASSUMING THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS TIMELY FILED IN THE LOWER TRIBUNAL, MUST THE NOTICE OF APPEAL BE FILED IN THE APPELLATE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER IN ORDER FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO TREAT THE NOTICE AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Stieglitz v. City Commission
525 So. 2d 438 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
522 So. 2d 104, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 747, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1113, 1988 WL 24803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gelinas-v-city-of-south-miami-fladistctapp-1988.