RONALD PONZOLI AND RICHARD WASSENBERG, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. ARTHUR HAWKESWORTH, JR., AND E. JAMES SCHMICK, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves the correctness of an order apportioning costs during the pendency of an appeal. The original appeal involved the rights of the parties incident to the dissolution of their law firm. In this connection, see opinion of this court rendered in Hawkesworth v. Ponzoli, 388 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We find that the order under review in this cause had the impact of modifying the original final judgment, while the appeal in the cited cause was pending.
Therefore, we reverse the order under review and return the matter to the trial court to assess costs as provided in the original final judgment.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Battaglia Fruit Co. v. The City OF Maitland, 530 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…oiced opposition, but no representative of the City of Maitland appeared or spoke against the application. The fact that the City was given notice of the county hearings would not automatically establish standing. See F & R Builders, Inc. v. Durant, 390 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See also Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla. 1972). The circuit court’s certiorari review in this case was limited to the record below. See § 37-16, Orange County Code (Circuit court shall not conduct a trial de nov…
-
Save Brickell Ave., Inc. v. The City OF Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…County, supra, 261 So. 2d at 838; Hemisphere Equity Realty Co., Inc. v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayers Ass’n., 369 So. 2d 996, 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and F & R Builders, Inc. v. Durant, 390 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cited by the respondents, deal only with the ability to appeal zoning decisions to the County Commission, as provided by the Dade County code. They do not concern the present issue of the right of access to the courts — a questio…
-
Carlos Ests., Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 426 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…is grouped and utilized to its maximum benefit. . While we recognize that the mere fact that Mr. Suero received a courtesy notice of the special exception hearing does not, ipso facto, give him standing to appeal, F. & R. Builders, Inc. v. Durant, 390 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the fact that he was among those deemed by the County to be entitled to notice, see § 33-310(a), Dade County Code, is a factor to be considered on the question of standing. Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1972). . “Sp…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hawkesworth v. Ponzoli, 388 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)