Rosenthal v. Watkins
This text of 623 So. 2d 855 (Rosenthal v. Watkins) 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
Vladimir ROSENTHAL, M.D., et al., Appellants,
v.
Antonia Maria McDowell WATKINS, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Womack & Bass and Eric Colburn Sage, Miami, for appellants.
Craig S. Bulkeley, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss because of an alleged failure to timely effect service of process pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(i) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Khandjian v. Compagnie *856 Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A., 619 So.2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Weissman v. Joye, 619 So.2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
We decline to treat the proceeding as an application for certiorari because, among other reasons, it is apparent that the order, far from departing from the essential requirements of the law, was in full accordance with them. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(i); see Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1992); Hernandez v. Page, 580 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
623 So. 2d 855, 1993 WL 347488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-watkins-fladistctapp-1993.