Myles v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Myles v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

633 So. 2d 1200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3026, 1994 WL 101220

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2457

StatusPublished

This text of 633 So. 2d 1200 (Myles v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services) 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

Myles v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 633 So. 2d 1200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3026, 1994 WL 101220 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George Myles appeals an order denying relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.270(b). See Myles v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 590 So.2d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The trial court was correct in its conclusion that the motion was untimely. See Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc. v. George Constr. .Corp., 153 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (construing similarly worded provision of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.38- [now Rule 1.540]); Legler v. Kwitney, Kroop & Scheinberg, P.A., 520 So.2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (construing similarly worded provision of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540); see also Glatstein v. City of Miami, 391 So.2d 297, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (same); Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Watson, 341 So.2d 1049, 1051 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (same). Assuming arguendo that the motion was timely filed, we see no reversible error in the trial court’s alternative ruling denying relief on the merits.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

George Myles appeals an order denying relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.270(b). See Myles v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 590 So.2d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The trial court was correct in its conclusion that the motion was untimely. See Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc. v. George Constr. .Corp., 153 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (construing similarly worded provision of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.38- [now Rule 1.540]); Legler v. Kwitney, Kroop & Scheinberg, P.A., 520 So.2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (construing similarly worded provision of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540); see also Glatstein v. City of Miami, 391 So.2d 297, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (same); Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Watson, 341 So.2d 1049, 1051 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (same). Assuming arguendo that the motion was timely filed, we see no reversible error in the trial court’s alternative ruling denying relief on the merits.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 So. 2d 1200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3026, 1994 WL 101220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myles-v-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack