Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co. v. Crapps

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co. v. Crapps

382 So. 2d 891, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16574

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 30, 1980

DocketNo. SS-209

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 382 So. 2d 891 (Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co. v. Crapps) 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

Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co. v. Crapps, 382 So. 2d 891, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16574 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying its motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. We find that appellant’s notice of interlocutory appeal was untimely filed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(b). Since there is no provision in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure authorizing a motion for rehearing directed to an interlocutory order, Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972), appellant’s motion for rehearing directed to the interlocutory [892]*892order denying its motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue did not suspend rendition of such order, and thus had no effect on the time for filing a notice of appeal. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g); Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Southern Sanitation Service, Inc., 370 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Business Cards Tomorrow, Inc. v. Advisory Board, Inc., 379 So.2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Accordingly,- the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying its motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. We find that appellant’s notice of interlocutory appeal was untimely filed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(b). Since there is no provision in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure authorizing a motion for rehearing directed to an interlocutory order, Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972), appellant’s motion for rehearing directed to the interlocutory [892]*892order denying its motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue did not suspend rendition of such order, and thus had no effect on the time for filing a notice of appeal. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g); Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Southern Sanitation Service, Inc., 370 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Business Cards Tomorrow, Inc. v. Advisory Board, Inc., 379 So.2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Accordingly,- the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 So. 2d 891, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stockton-whatley-davin-co-v-crapps-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack