WILLIAM LA GRANDE, APPELLANT,
v.
B & L SERVICES, INC., AND FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A motion for rehearing en banc must be filed in conjunction with a motion for rehearing; otherwise, it is a nullity and subject to administrative dismissal.
Appellant filed a motion for rehearing en banc without also filing a motion for rehearing. The court had previously dismissed a similar motion filed b…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Rehearing En Banc cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER ON “MOTION FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION”
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has filed a motion which he denominates “Motion for Special Consideration” which seeks the following relief:
(1) allowing Appellant the opportunity to file a Motion for Rehearing in conjunction with his previously filed Motion for Rehearing En Banc and/or, (2) allowing Appellant additional time within which to file his Notice of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.
Following this Court’s opinion on the merits rendered on June 9, 1983, 432 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.App.), appellant filed a “Motion for Rehearing En Banc.” That motion was not filed in conjunction with a motion for rehearing under Fla.App.R. 9.330(a). Indeed, no such motion for rehearing was filed at all. Fla.App.R. 9.331(c) provides in pertinent part:
Within the time prescribed by Rule 9.330 and in conjunction with the motion for rehearing, a party may move for an en banc hearing solely on the ground that such consideration is necessary to maintain uniformity in the court’s decisions. [e.s.]
A motion for rehearing en banc not filed in conjunction with a Rule 9.330(a) motion for rehearing is a nonallowable motion under Rule 9.331 and is a nullity. State v. Kilpatrick, 420 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1982).
Accordingly, appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc was properly dismissed administratively and our mandate issued on July 8, 1983.
Appellant’s present motion seeks the relief described above because, as he says, this Court in a previous unrelated case in which appellant’s counsel was involved denied his motion for rehearing en banc (also not filed in conjunction with a Rule 9.330 motion for rehearing) instead of administratively dismissing it as a nullity. Appellant’s motion is without merit and it is therefore denied.
BOOTH, WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
3299 N. Fed. Hwy., Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Broward Cnty., 646 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…sideration. International did not seek it and 3299 failed to file an accompanying motion for rehearing nor did it adopt International’s motion for rehearing. See State v. Kilpatrick, 420 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla.1982); La Grande v. B & L Services, Inc., 436 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Moreover, the issues are not of “exceptional importance” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331. . 3299 requests that this court certify the appeal for "pass through” jurisdiction to the supreme court p…
Authorities Cited
- Crystal Court Rec., Inc. v. Crystal Court Manor NO. 5 Condo., Inc., 432 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- La Grande v. B & L Servs., Inc., 432 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- State v. Kilpatrick, 420 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1982)