ARMAND DAYAN, APPELLANT,
v.
H.I. DEVELOPMENT/HOLIDAY INN, APPELLEE
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.
In this worker's compensation appeal, the court addressed whether timely filing of a notice of appeal with the appellate court, rather than the lower tribunal, invokes appellate jurisdiction. The court held that jurisdiction was properly invoked under the Alfonso doctrine, allowing the appeal to proceed despite the procedural deviation.
The court held that the notice of appeal was timely and sufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction under the Alfonso doctrine, which permits jurisdiction to be invoked by timely filing in either the lower court that issued the order or the appellate court that would review it.
[1] A notice of appeal is timely filed in an appellate court when it is filed with either the lower tribunal that issued the order to be reviewed or the appellate court that…
[2] A direct filing of a notice of appeal with the appellate court, rather than the lower tribunal, may be deemed sufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an appellate court's jurisdiction is invoked by the timely filing of a notice of appeal in either the lower court that issued the order to be reviewed or the appellate court which would have jurisdiction to review the order”
Establishes the core holding that jurisdiction can be invoked by filing with either court, applying the Alfonso doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Judge of Compensation Claims issued a final order on November 8, 1997. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal with the Florida District Court o…
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 Timeliness Of Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ON APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
PER CURIAM.
The notice of appeal in this Worker’s Compensation case was timely filed in this court, but the notice was not timely filed with the lower tribunal as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(2). Appellant was directed to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant files a response and a motion to transfer the notice of appeal to the lower tribunal or to deem the filing sufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction. We discharge the order to show cause and deny the motion to transfer. The final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) was mailed to the parties on November 8, 1997. The notice of appeal was timely filed in this court on December 8, 1997, but was not filed with the JCC until January 2, 1998. Although the notice of appeal was timely filed in this court, it was not timely filed in the lower tribunal as required by rule 9.180(b)(2).
Appellant files a response to the order to show cause and concedes that the notice of appeal was directly filed with this court, rather than with the lower tribunal as contemplated by the rule. Appellant submits that the procedural error made in this case is identical to the error made in Alfonso v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 616 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1993). In Alfonso, a notice of appeal was timely filed with the district court, instead of the clerk of the circuit court. The supreme court ruled that an appellate court’s jurisdiction is invoked by the timely filing of a notice of appeal in either the lower court that issued the order to be reviewed or the appellate court which would have jurisdiction to review the order. Here, appellant requests that the notice of appeal filed with this court be transferred to the lower tribunal or that his notice of appeal be deemed sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
We find the notice of appeal to be timely under Alfonso and we accept jurisdiction. Accordingly, we discharge the order to show cause. We note that rule 9.180(b)(2) was adopted after the supreme court ruled in Alfonso in 1998, but we believe that the principles set forth by the supreme court would apply to the facts of this case. The motion to transfer the notice of appeal to the lower tribunal is denied.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DISCHARGED.
ERVIN, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Browning v. NEW Hope South, 785 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ined to treat the timely filed notice of appeal in this case as a motion for review (to which the speaking motion for review later filed would relate back as an amendment) in No. 1D99-4770, I dissented, citing “Dayan v. H.I. Development/Holiday Inn, 710 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pellar v. Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc., 687 So. 2d 282, 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); [and] General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Packal, 512 So. 2d 344, 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) receded from on other grounds Aksomitas v. Maharaj, 771 So. 2d 541 (…
-
Thompson v. Park Place OF Venice, Inc., 888 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…tered the order and not any judge of compensation claims as the former rule provided. Amendments to the Florida Rules of Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773, 816 (Fla.1996). Our inquiry, however, does not end there. In Dayan v. H.I. Development/Holiday Inn, 710 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), this court addressed the problem of a notice of appeal in a workers’ compensation proceeding which was timely filed in the [*48] appellate court but not in the lower tribunal. It found that it had jurisdiction, relying upon Alfo…
Authorities Cited
- Cayetano E. Alfonso v. Dep't OF Env't Reg., 616 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1993)