LESLIE A. KUHN, EUGENE A. VAN VOORHIS AND RUSSELL H. KUHN, PETITIONERS,
v.
JAMES WALTER TELFORD, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court denied a motion to stay proceedings, finding that the petitioners failed to show good cause for the delay in filing their petition for certiorari beyond the prescribed fifteen-day period.
No, the petitioners failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in filing their petition for certiorari, and therefore, their motion to stay proceedings was denied.
“the petition for certiorari in this cause not having been filed within the fifteen day period provided by Rule 4.5, subd. c (6), as amended June 8, 1959, effective September 1, 1959, 31 F.S.A., did not automatically stay further proceedings in the District Court and the trial court pending disposition of said petition.”
Establishes that the late filing of the petition for certiorari did not automatically stay lower court proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners filed a petition for certiorari after the fifteen-day period allowed by Rule 4.5, subd. c (6). This late filing did not automatically stay…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
The petition for certiorari in this cause not having been filed within the fifteen day period provided by Rule 4.5, subd. c (6), as amended June 8, 1959, effective September 1, 1959, 31 F.S.A., did not automatically stay further proceedings in the District Court and the trial court pending disposition of said petition. A motion has now been filed by petitioners to stay further proceedings in the District Court and the trial court pursuant to the provisions of the aforementioned rule providing that the filing of a petition here after the fifteen day period mentioned in the rule shall operate as a stay only upon the order of this Court after due notice to the adverse party.
Inherent in the rule is the requirement that, in order to obtain a stay here, good cause must be shown. Were this not so, no purpose whatever would be served by the provision for automatic stay upon filing the petition within the fifteen day period. *240Neither the petition nor the accompanying brief nor anyhing brought to the attention of the Court at the oral argument on the petition disclosed good cause why action in the District Court or the trial court should be stayed pending the disposition of the application for certiorari here. The petition is, therefore,
Denied.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. L & L Invs., Inc., 136 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…tion for certiorari in the Supreme Court on January 10, 1962, no stay of proceedings was in effect in this court or in the circuit court at the time the latter court entered the questioned orders, or at any time since. See Kuhn v. Telford, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 239. The response filed by appellee to the petition for prohibition and to enforce the mandate is without merit. It does no more than recite the matter which was filed in the trial court claiming fraud on this court, as above referred to, and which in…
Authorities Cited
- Kuhn v. Telford, 115 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)