Latimore v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Latimore v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION

34 So. 3d 205, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6281, 2010 WL 1816446

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 2010

Docket1D10-1386

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 So. 3d 205 (Latimore v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION) 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

Latimore v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 34 So. 3d 205, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6281, 2010 WL 1816446 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Inasmuch as the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we are required to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.110(c); First Nat’l Bank in Ft. Myers v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 461 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (stating that appellant’s failure to file the notice of appeal within the requisite 30-day period is “an irremediable jurisdictional defect.”). However, because appellant alleges that he did not receive a copy of the final order until the time for filing a notice of appeal had expired, this disposition is without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief by filing a motion with the Unemployment Appeals Commission requesting that it vacate and reenter the final order at issue. See Etienne v. Simco Recycling Corp., 721 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

HAWKES, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Inasmuch as the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we are required to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.110(c); First Nat’l Bank in Ft. Myers v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 461 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (stating that appellant’s failure to file the notice of appeal within the requisite 30-day period is “an irremediable jurisdictional defect.”). However, because appellant alleges that he did not receive a copy of the final order until the time for filing a notice of appeal had expired, this disposition is without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief by filing a motion with the Unemployment Appeals Commission requesting that it vacate and reenter the final order at issue. See Etienne v. Simco Recycling Corp., 721 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

HAWKES, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 So. 3d 205, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6281, 2010 WL 1816446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latimore-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack