Stieglitz v. City Commission

525 So. 2d 438, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 864, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1310, 1988 WL 28434
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 5, 1988·No. No. 87-522·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

The respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted on the authority of Gelinas v. City of South Miami, 522 So.2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Paul v. City of Miami Beach, 519 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 518 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). As we did in Gelinas and Paul, we certify the question presented:

WHEN A PARTY SEEKS APPELLATE REVIEW OF A NON-APPEALABLE ORDER, AND ASSUMING THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS TIMELY FILED IN THE LOWER TRIBUNAL, MUST THE NOTICE OF APPEAL BE FILED IN THE APPELLATE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER IN ORDER FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO TREAT THE NOTICE AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI?

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

Stieglitz v. City Commission, 525 So. 2d 438, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 864, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1310, 1988 WL 28434 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

525 So. 2d 438 (Stieglitz v. City Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stieglitz v. City Commission
537 So. 2d 98 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Downey v. JUNGLE DEN VILLAS REC. ASS'N
525 So. 2d 438 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)