Perkins v. Perkins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perkins v. Perkins

141 So. 2d 311, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3248

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 1962

DocketNo. D-125

StatusPublished

This text of 141 So. 2d 311 (Perkins v. Perkins) 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

Perkins v. Perkins, 141 So. 2d 311, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3248 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal taken by the plaintiff-cross-defendant in a divorce suit from two post-decretal orders, one recorded and the other oral, of the Circuit Court for Duval County. The appellant previously had taken an appeal to this court • from the final decree of divorce entered in that suit, which appeal (Case No. D-59) was dismissed by this court sua sponte under Rule 6.13, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. In this interlocutory appeal we have carefully examined the record on appeal as permitted in this type of appeal by [312]*312Rule 4.2(d) and find that this interlocutory appeal is without substantial merit. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4.2(c), the interlocutory appeal is dismissed on our own motion. So ordered.

CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and STURGIS and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal taken by the plaintiff-cross-defendant in a divorce suit from two post-decretal orders, one recorded and the other oral, of the Circuit Court for Duval County. The appellant previously had taken an appeal to this court • from the final decree of divorce entered in that suit, which appeal (Case No. D-59) was dismissed by this court sua sponte under Rule 6.13, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. In this interlocutory appeal we have carefully examined the record on appeal as permitted in this type of appeal by [312]*312Rule 4.2(d) and find that this interlocutory appeal is without substantial merit. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4.2(c), the interlocutory appeal is dismissed on our own motion. So ordered.

CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and STURGIS and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 So. 2d 311, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-perkins-fladistctapp-1962.