DANIEL LYDON

v.

FELICE LYDON

Citator

Cited By

• Ganzer v. Ganzer, 84 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1956)
  …ay order to operate upon, there is nothing to stay and the timely filing of a petition for rehearing tolls the time within which appeal may be taken. And in Lauderdale by the Sea Development Co. v. Lauderdale Surf & Yacht Estate, 1948, 160 Fla. 929, 37 So. 2d 364, 10 [*592] A.L.R.2d 1072, we said that if the decree grants affirmative relief, the petition for rehearing of itself will not toll the time for appeal but there must also be obtained a stay order pursuant to what is now Rule 3.16, 1954 Florida Rules…
• Wolf v. Cleveland Elec. Co., 58 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1952)
  …, and the orders thereon, did not stop the running of the statutory period within which the appeal was required to be taken from the final judgment of November 24, 1950. Lauderdale By The Sea Development Co. v. Lauderdale Surf & Yacht Estates, Inc., 160 Fla. 912, 37 So. 2d 364, 10 A.L.R.2d 1072. Even if the order dated December 11, 1951, above quoted could be considered as the final judgment in this case, it would be necessary that we affirm the same under the authority of National Surety Corp. v. Sholtz,…
• Halberstadt v. Halberstadt, 72 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1954)
  …ts of the final decree for review. Thomkin Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, 135 Fla. 360, 185 So. 422; Hollywood, Inc., v. Clark, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So. 2d 175; and Lauderdale By The Sea Development Co. v. Lauderdale Surf and Yacht Estates, 160 Fla. 929, 37 So. 2d 364, 10 A.L. R.2d 1072 are relied on to support this contention. The trial court, for apparently good reasons rejected this contention. This appeal is from the final decree except as to that part granting the divorce. Several questions are urged for de…

  ← 1 / 2 →