Macri v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Macri v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A.

998 So. 2d 1194, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 82

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 2009

DocketNo. 1D07-5818

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 998 So. 2d 1194 (Macri v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A.) 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

Macri v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A., 998 So. 2d 1194, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 82 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss Cross-Appeal, as well as the cross-appellants’ response thereto, the Court has determined that the cross-appeal should be dismissed. Contrary to the cross-appellants’ suggestion, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) does not authorize immediate appellate review of an order that determines as a matter of law that a party is not entitled to immunity pursuant to Florida’s Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (NICA). §§ 766.301-766.316, Fla. Stat. (2007). Furthermore, even if the lower tribunal’s determination that the cross-appellants were not entitled to NICA immunity did fall within the scope of rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), the cross-appellants failed to seek timely review. The ruling occurred in May 2006. The cross-appellants did not seek appellate review until this cross-appeal was filed in November 2007, well beyond the 30 days provided by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(b). Accordingly, the motion is granted and the cross-appeal is hereby dismissed.

HAWKES, C.J., BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss Cross-Appeal, as well as the cross-appellants’ response thereto, the Court has determined that the cross-appeal should be dismissed. Contrary to the cross-appellants’ suggestion, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) does not authorize immediate appellate review of an order that determines as a matter of law that a party is not entitled to immunity pursuant to Florida’s Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (NICA). §§ 766.301-766.316, Fla. Stat. (2007). Furthermore, even if the lower tribunal’s determination that the cross-appellants were not entitled to NICA immunity did fall within the scope of rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), the cross-appellants failed to seek timely review. The ruling occurred in May 2006. The cross-appellants did not seek appellate review until this cross-appeal was filed in November 2007, well beyond the 30 days provided by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(b). Accordingly, the motion is granted and the cross-appeal is hereby dismissed.

HAWKES, C.J., BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

998 So. 2d 1194, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macri-v-clements-ashmore-pa-fladistctapp-2009.