Helker v. Gouldy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Helker v. Gouldy

181 So. 2d 536

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 1966

DocketNo. 65-990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 So. 2d 536 (Helker v. Gouldy) 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

Helker v. Gouldy, 181 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The motion of appellee The Prudential Insurance Company of America to dismiss the appeal is denied.

The chancellor’s order appealed' from was interlocutory. This appeal, final' in form, will be treated as interlocutory on authority of Mitchell v. Italian-American Club, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 228, and Washington Security Co. v. Tracy’s Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., Fla.App. 1965, 166 So.2d 680, no undue hardship to appellees having-been made to appear, by incident delay or otherwise.¹

“Appeals to the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal are constitutionally guaranteed rights in this State. This being true, it is fundamental that statutes or rules regulating the exercise of suck rights should be liberally construed in favor of the appealing party and in the interest of manifest justice.” Robbins v. Cipes, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 521.

The time within which appellants may file the appeal papers, appellants’ brief and' appendix, as provided for by Rule 4.2 F.A.R. is hereby fixed at 15 days from the date of this order, and thereupon the appeal shall' proceed as provided for by the appellate-rules for such interlocutory appeal.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

The motion of appellee The Prudential Insurance Company of America to dismiss the appeal is denied.

The chancellor’s order appealed' from was interlocutory. This appeal, final' in form, will be treated as interlocutory on authority of Mitchell v. Italian-American Club, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 228, and Washington Security Co. v. Tracy’s Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., Fla.App. 1965, 166 So.2d 680, no undue hardship to appellees having-been made to appear, by incident delay or otherwise.¹

“Appeals to the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal are constitutionally guaranteed rights in this State. This being true, it is fundamental that statutes or rules regulating the exercise of suck rights should be liberally construed in favor of the appealing party and in the interest of manifest justice.” Robbins v. Cipes, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 521.

The time within which appellants may file the appeal papers, appellants’ brief and' appendix, as provided for by Rule 4.2 F.A.R. is hereby fixed at 15 days from the date of this order, and thereupon the appeal shall' proceed as provided for by the appellate-rules for such interlocutory appeal.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 2d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helker-v-gouldy-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack