Underwood v. FLORIDA FAVORITE FERTILIZER

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Underwood v. FLORIDA FAVORITE FERTILIZER

6 So. 3d 716, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3081, 2009 WL 975467

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 2009

Docket1D08-5866

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 So. 3d 716 (Underwood v. FLORIDA FAVORITE FERTILIZER) 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

Underwood v. FLORIDA FAVORITE FERTILIZER, 6 So. 3d 716, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3081, 2009 WL 975467 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of Appellant’s response to this court’s order to show cause, entered February 27, 2009, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Troche v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 954 So.2d 685, 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (noting if notice of appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal); see also Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 980 So.2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (noting a motion for rehearing in a workers’ compensation case does not toll the time for filing an appeal); Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.122(3) (providing “a motion for re-hearing does not toll the time within which an order becomes final or an appeal may be filed”).

WOLF, KAHN, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of Appellant’s response to this court’s order to show cause, entered February 27, 2009, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Troche v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 954 So.2d 685, 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (noting if notice of appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal); see also Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 980 So.2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (noting a motion for rehearing in a workers’ compensation case does not toll the time for filing an appeal); Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.122(3) (providing “a motion for re-hearing does not toll the time within which an order becomes final or an appeal may be filed”).

WOLF, KAHN, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 So. 3d 716, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3081, 2009 WL 975467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underwood-v-florida-favorite-fertilizer-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack