Whitehead v. Linkous

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Whitehead v. Linkous

395 So. 2d 301, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19651

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1981

DocketNo. WW-299

StatusPublished

This text of 395 So. 2d 301 (Whitehead v. Linkous) 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

Whitehead v. Linkous, 395 So. 2d 301, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19651 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

On 16 March 1981, this Court received a copy of an order from the Circuit Court of Escambia County purporting to grant a Motion to Extend Time for Filing of Appellant’s Reply Brief. Rule 9.600(a), Fla.R. App.P., provides that the lower tribunal has concurrent jurisdiction to render orders on procedural matters only so long as the record has not been transmitted. Since the record was received by this Court on 13 February 1981 and the Motion was filed on or after 20 February 1981, the trial court had lost jurisdiction of the cause prior to the filing of the Motion for Extension of Time. Accordingly, the Motion should properly have been filed in this Court for a ruling by this Court.

However, rather than delay this cause in order to emphasize the procedural requirements of the Appellate Rules, this Court will for this one occasion adopt the order of the circuit court as its own and accept the Appellant’s Reply Brief as timely on 20 March 1981. In the future, however, the Court may reject a brief as untimely when a motion for extension of time has not been granted by the proper court.

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

ORDER

On 16 March 1981, this Court received a copy of an order from the Circuit Court of Escambia County purporting to grant a Motion to Extend Time for Filing of Appellant’s Reply Brief. Rule 9.600(a), Fla.R. App.P., provides that the lower tribunal has concurrent jurisdiction to render orders on procedural matters only so long as the record has not been transmitted. Since the record was received by this Court on 13 February 1981 and the Motion was filed on or after 20 February 1981, the trial court had lost jurisdiction of the cause prior to the filing of the Motion for Extension of Time. Accordingly, the Motion should properly have been filed in this Court for a ruling by this Court.

However, rather than delay this cause in order to emphasize the procedural requirements of the Appellate Rules, this Court will for this one occasion adopt the order of the circuit court as its own and accept the Appellant’s Reply Brief as timely on 20 March 1981. In the future, however, the Court may reject a brief as untimely when a motion for extension of time has not been granted by the proper court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 So. 2d 301, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-v-linkous-fladistctapp-1981.