Woodson v. Crews

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woodson v. Crews

107 So. 3d 481, 2013 WL 264775, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 994

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 24, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-5343

StatusPublished

This text of 107 So. 3d 481 (Woodson v. Crews) 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

Woodson v. Crews, 107 So. 3d 481, 2013 WL 264775, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 994 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order of December 6, 2012, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Although the lower tribunal granted appellant’s motion for rehearing in part, apparently treating it as timely filed, it was without authority to do so. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b). Consequently, appellant’s untimely motion for rehearing failed to delay rendition of the underlying order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h). As a result, the notice of appeal, which was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the final order, failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PADOVANO, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order of December 6, 2012, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Although the lower tribunal granted appellant’s motion for rehearing in part, apparently treating it as timely filed, it was without authority to do so. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b). Consequently, appellant’s untimely motion for rehearing failed to delay rendition of the underlying order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h). As a result, the notice of appeal, which was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the final order, failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PADOVANO, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 3d 481, 2013 WL 264775, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodson-v-crews-fladistctapp-2013.