Vliegenthart v. Grover

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vliegenthart v. Grover

575 So. 2d 781, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1799, 1991 WL 28076

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2269

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 575 So. 2d 781 (Vliegenthart v. Grover) 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

Vliegenthart v. Grover, 575 So. 2d 781, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1799, 1991 WL 28076 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ON RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of an order of clarification entered pursuant to Petitioner’s motion for rehearing directed to an earlier order compelling discovery. The petition was filed more than thirty (30) days after rendition of the order compelling discovery. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(c). A motion for rehearing directed to such an interlocutory discovery order is not authorized and does not toll the time for seeking review. See, e.g., District School Board of St. Johns County v. Timoney, 524 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (motion for rehearing not authorized as to interlocutory order so time to file petition is not tolled); Longo v. Longo, 515 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (motions for rehearing directed to interlocutory orders are not authorized and do not toll time for filing appeal). Since the petition was not timely filed, the court is without jurisdiction.

PETITION DISMISSED.

W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

ON RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of an order of clarification entered pursuant to Petitioner’s motion for rehearing directed to an earlier order compelling discovery. The petition was filed more than thirty (30) days after rendition of the order compelling discovery. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(c). A motion for rehearing directed to such an interlocutory discovery order is not authorized and does not toll the time for seeking review. See, e.g., District School Board of St. Johns County v. Timoney, 524 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (motion for rehearing not authorized as to interlocutory order so time to file petition is not tolled); Longo v. Longo, 515 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (motions for rehearing directed to interlocutory orders are not authorized and do not toll time for filing appeal). Since the petition was not timely filed, the court is without jurisdiction.

PETITION DISMISSED.

W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 So. 2d 781, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1799, 1991 WL 28076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vliegenthart-v-grover-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack