Glindmeier v. Kaebel Wholesales & Fluorescent Maintenance
This text of 997 So. 2d 518 (Glindmeier v. Kaebel Wholesales & Fluorescent Maintenance) 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.
Opinion
Lutz Frank GLINDMEIER, Appellant,
v.
KAEBEL WHOLESALES & FLUORESCENT MAINTENANCE, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
*519 Maurice Graham, Oakland, for Appellant.
Geoffrey C. Curreri, Plantation, H. George Kagan, Miller, Kagan, Rodriguez, & Silver, P.L., West Palm Beach, and Stephanie A. Robinson, Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow, & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Upon review of Appellant's response to this court's order to show cause, entered November 17, 2008, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Troche v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 954 So.2d 685, 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (noting if notice of appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal); see also Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 980 So.2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (noting a motion for rehearing in a workers' compensation case does not toll the time for filing an appeal); Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.122(3) (providing "a motion for re-hearing does not toll the time within which an order becomes final or an appeal may be filed").
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
997 So. 2d 518, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 20348, 2008 WL 5411839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glindmeier-v-kaebel-wholesales-fluorescent-maintenance-fladistctapp-2008.