Reilly v. Hyster Co.
This text of 307 So. 2d 202 (Reilly v. Hyster Co.) 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.
Opinion
It appears that the notice of appeal in this cause was not timely filed and, therefore, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
A jury verdict was returned on May 22, 1972, in favor of defendants-appellees. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial. A final judgment for the defendants, reciting therein that the plaintiff’s motion for new trial was thereby denied, was filed September 28, 1972. The following day the judgment was assigned a book and page and duly recorded this being the rendition date. Rule 1.3, F.A.R. Thereafter, on October 4, 1972, plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing of the denial of her motion for new trial. The motion for rehearing was denied by order entered November 12, 1973. Notice of appeal was filed within thirty (30) days of this latter date.
The rules make no provision for a motion for rehearing addressed to an order denying on the merits a proper and [203]*203timely filed motion for new trial1 and, thus, appellant’s motion for rehearing filed October 4, 1972, did not have the effect of tolling the rendition date of the final judgment.2 The notice of appeal, having been filed more than thirty (30) days after the rendition date, was untimely and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction of the appeal.3
Gratuitously, we observe that appellant has shown no error in the order denying her motion for new trial, the sole point raised on appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
307 So. 2d 202, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reilly-v-hyster-co-fladistctapp-1975.