FLOYD RAY MEEKS, SR., AND MARJORIE MEEKS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
IRENE EVA KOHTEN, 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.
The court affirmed its prior decision, then struck a subsequent pleading filed by the appellants seeking a rehearing and indicating an intent to seek certiorari, because the court had lost jurisdiction after issuing its mandate and the appellants' filing was untimely.
No, this court does not retain jurisdiction to grant a rehearing or modify its decision after issuing its mandate and after the time for seeking certiorari has expired.
“The court having heretofore finally acted on appellants' previous petition for rehearing, and the notice of intention to apply to the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari not being filed within the time provided by Florida Appellate Rule 4.5(c) (6), 31 F.S.A., this court has lost jurisdiction of said cause and It Is Ordered that the pleadings herein mentioned be and they are hereby stricken from the record.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for striking the appellants' subsequent filing, emphasizing the loss of jurisdiction due to the issuance of the mandate and the untimeliness of the filing.
Appellants filed a pleading entitled "Notice of Petition for Writ of Certiorari" after the court had already denied their petition for rehearing and i…
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 Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and WIGGINGTON, JJ., concur.
Order
Subsequent to denial of appellant’s petition for rehearing and after the issuance of the mandate herein, appellants in proper *47person have filed a pleading entitled “Notice of Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” the prayer of which is that a rehearing be granted and our decision modified to accord with movants’ views on appeal. Attached to this pleading is an affidavit of one of the appellants apparently having for its purpose the giving of notice of intention to apply to the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari to review the decision of this court.
The court having heretofore finally acted on appellants’ previous petition for rehearing, and the notice of intention to apply to the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari not being filed within the time provided by Florida Appellate Rule 4.5(c) (6), 31 F.S.A., this court has lost jurisdiction of said cause and
It Is Ordered that the pleadings herein mentioned be and they are hereby stricken from the record.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K„ and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.