HENRY ALBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
HELENA CAREY, 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 appellate court quashed an appeal because the notice of appeal was filed too late to review the summary judgment and the petition for rehearing was legally ineffective to extend the appeal period.
No, a petition for rehearing filed after a summary final judgment is legally ineffective and does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from the summary judgment.
“We hold we are without jurisdiction to proceed.”
Establishes the court's lack of authority to hear the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant filed a notice of appeal 71 days after a summary final judgment was entered. The defendant had filed a petition for rehearing and an ame…
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.
This cause came on upon a motion to quash the appeal. An examination of the record revealed that a summary final judgment in favor of the plaintiff was recorded on the 29th day of October 1959. On November 6, 1959, the defendant filed a petition for rehearing and on November 23, 1959, an amended petition for rehearing. On December 30, 1959, the trial judge entered an order denying petition for rehearing. Thereafter on the 8th day of January 1960, the defendant filed its notice of appeal. This notice recites that the appeal is from the summary final judgment recorded October 29, 1959, and is to review the order denying the petition for rehearing.
*190We hold we are without jurisdiction to proceed. It is apparent that we cannot review the summary judgment since the notice of appeal was filed 71 days after the entry of said judgment. Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 3.2, subd. b, 31 F.S.A.
It is also clear that the proceedings in the nature of a petition for rehearing after the entry of the summary judgment were without legal effect. Weisberg v. Perl, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 56; Counne v. Saffan, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 586; La Joie v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., Fla. App.1959, 108 So.2d 497. Since such proceedings were without effect, they could not operate to extend the appeal period. The appeal must be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)…ot operate to toll the time for filing notice of appeal. See Weisberg v. Perl, 73 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1954); Counne v. Saffan, 87 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1956); La Joie v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 108 So. 2d 497 (Fla.App.2d, 1959); Albert v. Carey, 120 So. 2d 189 (Fla.App.3rd, 1960); and Aurremma v. B-Thrifty Super Market, Inc., 127 So. 2d 682 (Fla.App.3rd, 1961).1 Lajoie v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, supra, is representative of the [*4] “pre-amendment” decisions. In that case the trial court gr…
-
Home News Publ'g Co. v. U-M Publ'g, Inc., 246 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.” . Rule 4.2(b), F.A.R. . Rule 1.3, Definitions — Rendition, F.A.R. . In Re Estate of Lee (Fla.1956), 90 So. 2d 290. . Albert v. Carey (Fla.App.1960), 120 So. 2d 189. . LaJoie v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation (Fla.App.1959), 108 So. 2d 497. . Rule 4.2(a), F.A.R. . F.S. § 59.45, F.S.A. “If an appeal be improvidently taken where the remedy might have been more properly sought by certiorari, this alone…
-
Marans v. Stang, 124 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…no provision in the rules or any other basis of which we are aware that permits the consideration of a motion in the nature of rehearing upon the entry of a summary judgment. Counne v. Saffan, Fla.1956, 87 So. 2d 586; Albert v. Carey, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 189. Therefore, the trial judge was eminently correct in concluding that he lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion to further amend the pleadings subsequent to the entry of summary final judgment. Batteiger v. Batteiger, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 602.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Counne v. Saffan, 87 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1956)
- Weisberg v. Perl et ux., 73 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1954)
- LA Joie v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 108 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)