Knapp v. Talton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Knapp v. Talton

129 So. 3d 1110, 2013 WL 6331572, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19449

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 2013

DocketNo. 5D13-375

StatusPublished

This text of 129 So. 3d 1110 (Knapp v. Talton) 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

Knapp v. Talton, 129 So. 3d 1110, 2013 WL 6331572, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19449 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b); Harrison v. La Placida Cmty. Ass’n, 665 So.2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that Rule 1.540 cannot be used to remedy legal error, such as “vacating] an order of dismissal upon a finding that [the] decision [to dismiss] was erroneous”); Averbuch v. Lauffer, 516 So.2d 973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“[A] party may not utilize a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., to relitigate issues which have been previously litigated in a motion for rehearing pursuant to Rule 1.530, Fla. R. Civ. P. If the grounds are identical, a party’s failure to seek appellate review of the order denying the motion for rehearing precludes further judicial review.”) (quoting Sloan v. Sloan, 393 So.2d 642, 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)).

ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b); Harrison v. La Placida Cmty. Ass’n, 665 So.2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that Rule 1.540 cannot be used to remedy legal error, such as “vacating] an order of dismissal upon a finding that [the] decision [to dismiss] was erroneous”); Averbuch v. Lauffer, 516 So.2d 973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“[A] party may not utilize a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., to relitigate issues which have been previously litigated in a motion for rehearing pursuant to Rule 1.530, Fla. R. Civ. P. If the grounds are identical, a party’s failure to seek appellate review of the order denying the motion for rehearing precludes further judicial review.”) (quoting Sloan v. Sloan, 393 So.2d 642, 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)).

ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 So. 3d 1110, 2013 WL 6331572, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-talton-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack