Maginnis v. Crosby

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maginnis v. Crosby

903 So. 2d 266, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8082, 2005 WL 1262430

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 31, 2005·No. No. 1D04-4748·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of October 28, 2004, the Court has determined that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(b). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Snelson v. Snelson, 440 So.2d [267]*267477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In light of the dismissal, the appellee’s “Limited Appearance and Motion to Stay Briefing or in the Alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time,” filed on November 8, 2004, is denied as moot.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and THOMAS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of October 28, 2004, the Court has determined that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(b). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Snelson v. Snelson, 440 So.2d [267]*267477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In light of the dismissal, the appellee’s “Limited Appearance and Motion to Stay Briefing or in the Alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time,” filed on November 8, 2004, is denied as moot.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and THOMAS, JJ., Concur.

Maginnis v. Crosby, 903 So. 2d 266, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8082, 2005 WL 1262430 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

903 So. 2d 266 (Maginnis v. Crosby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related