Perez v. City of Tampa

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perez v. City of Tampa

181 So. 2d 571, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 1966

DocketNo. 6374

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 181 So. 2d 571 (Perez v. City of Tampa) 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

Perez v. City of Tampa, 181 So. 2d 571, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant City of Tampa moves to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff Gabriel Perez.

The plaintiff was the driver of an automobile which collided with a truck owned by the City of Tampa. Plaintiff’s wife Beatrice was a passenger in the plaintiff’s car. The complaint was in two counts, one alleging damage of the husband, and the other damages of the wife. The jury found for the City of Tampa as against the husband and for the wife against the City. The judgment for the wife was duly paid and satisfied.

Motion for new trial was filed by the husband, and while the same was pending and more than sixty days after the judgment was entered, he filed notice of appeal.

Florida Appellate Rule 1.3, 31 F.S.A., provides that a judgment is not considered as having been rendered if a timely motion for new trial is filed until said motion is disposed of. However, an appellant who files a notice of appeal before the entry of an order denying his motion for new trial is deemed to have waived or abandoned his own motion and thereby vested jurisdiction in the appellate court. State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson, Fla.1963, 156 So.2d 4. Bannister v. Hart, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 853.

Other points raised by the motion require reference to the record on appeal, which is [572]*572not yet filed in this Court. F.A.R. 3.6, subds. i & j (1).

Motion to dismiss denied.

LILES, Acting C. J., and SMITH, SHERMAN N., Jr., and ANDREWS, CHARLES O., Jr., Associate Judges, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant City of Tampa moves to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff Gabriel Perez.

The plaintiff was the driver of an automobile which collided with a truck owned by the City of Tampa. Plaintiff’s wife Beatrice was a passenger in the plaintiff’s car. The complaint was in two counts, one alleging damage of the husband, and the other damages of the wife. The jury found for the City of Tampa as against the husband and for the wife against the City. The judgment for the wife was duly paid and satisfied.

Motion for new trial was filed by the husband, and while the same was pending and more than sixty days after the judgment was entered, he filed notice of appeal.

Florida Appellate Rule 1.3, 31 F.S.A., provides that a judgment is not considered as having been rendered if a timely motion for new trial is filed until said motion is disposed of. However, an appellant who files a notice of appeal before the entry of an order denying his motion for new trial is deemed to have waived or abandoned his own motion and thereby vested jurisdiction in the appellate court. State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson, Fla.1963, 156 So.2d 4. Bannister v. Hart, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 853.

Other points raised by the motion require reference to the record on appeal, which is [572]*572not yet filed in this Court. F.A.R. 3.6, subds. i & j (1).

Motion to dismiss denied.

LILES, Acting C. J., and SMITH, SHERMAN N., Jr., and ANDREWS, CHARLES O., Jr., Associate Judges, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 2d 571, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-city-of-tampa-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack