Lundy v. Lundy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lundy v. Lundy

819 So. 2d 991, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8810, 2002 WL 1378819

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 2002

DocketNo. 1D02-1251

StatusPublished

This text of 819 So. 2d 991 (Lundy v. Lundy) 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

Lundy v. Lundy, 819 So. 2d 991, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8810, 2002 WL 1378819 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Valerie Lundy appeals two orders entered by the trial court on February 25, 2002, an order denying appellant’s motion for continuance and denying appellant’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction and an order directing the issuance of a writ of body attachment to cause the physical attachment of appellant. The orders appealed are neither a final order of contempt nor a nonfinal order determining the right to child custody, see rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(III)' Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. While the writ of habeas corpus issued in this proceeding in December 2001 may have determined the right to temporary child custody, appellant has not appealed that order. Accordingly, having considered the appellant’s response to this court’s show cause order of April 10, 2002, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ALLEN, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Valerie Lundy appeals two orders entered by the trial court on February 25, 2002, an order denying appellant’s motion for continuance and denying appellant’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction and an order directing the issuance of a writ of body attachment to cause the physical attachment of appellant. The orders appealed are neither a final order of contempt nor a nonfinal order determining the right to child custody, see rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(III)' Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. While the writ of habeas corpus issued in this proceeding in December 2001 may have determined the right to temporary child custody, appellant has not appealed that order. Accordingly, having considered the appellant’s response to this court’s show cause order of April 10, 2002, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ALLEN, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

819 So. 2d 991, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8810, 2002 WL 1378819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundy-v-lundy-fladistctapp-2002.