ALIMENTA (U.S.A.), INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PENDER PEANUT CO., APPELLEE
ALIMENTA (U.S.A.), INC., APPELLANT,
PENDER PEANUT CO., APPELLEE
389 So. 2d 7
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1980)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Sua sponte, this Court dismisses the appeal on the ground that it was untimely filed. The order appealed from is an order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue. Such an order is interlocutory, and a motion to reconsider its entry is not authorized by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530(a). Thus, the filing and pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the time for taking an appeal. “M ” Enterprises, Inc. v. Baumgartner, 362 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Melbourne & Am. Druggists Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 415 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ch a motion does not fall within Rule 9.020(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and does not toll the rendition date of the original order. Hofer v. Gil de Rubio, 409 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Pender Peanut Co., 389 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Gordon v. Barley, 383 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DISMISSED. COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Indico Corp. v. Greenman Advertising Assocs., Inc., 362 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)