RAFFAELE AURREMMA, APPELLANT,
v.
B-THRIFTY SUPER MARKET, INC., 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 held that the notice of appeal was untimely for the first order and improperly filed for the second order, requiring dismissal.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal directed to two orders granting summary judgment for the defendant. The first order was entered November 17, 1959, …
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 Tolling Of Appeal Time cases and more on FLexlaw
The notice of appeal in this cause, filed April 28, 1960, is directed to two orders of the trial court. The first order is dated November 17, 1959, and purports to enter a summary final judgment for the defendant. The second order is dated March 8, 1960, and it is also a summary final judgment for the defendant. A review of the record discloses that the prior order was subsequently vacated on December 9, 1959, and the latter order had the effect of reinstating the court’s original decision to enter summary judgment for the defendant. This appeal must be dismissed sua sponte for the reasons hereinafter set forth.
The order dated November 17, 1959, cannot be reviewed by a notice of appeal filed April 28, 1960, as prohibited by the sixty day rule. F.A.R. Rule 3.2, subd. b, 31 F.S.A. See also Donin v. Goss, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 316, and Counne v. Saffan, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 586. After the entry of a summary judgment, there are no motions provided for in the rules which can toll the time for taking an appeal. Cf. Weisberg v. Perl, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 56.
The order dated March 8, 1960, cannot be reviewed by appeal. F.A.R. Rule 4.5, subd. c. provides for the manner of certiorari review of orders entered after final judgment. This subsequent order must be deemed an order after final judgment as must all orders subsequent to No*683vember 17, 1959. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Boone, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 834, 838-839, 57 A.L.R.2d 1186.
Without jurisdiction to entertain review of the orders designated in the notice of appeal, this cause must be dismissed. See Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, Fla.1960, 121 So.2d 648.
Appeal dismissed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., and PROBY, LUCIEN C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)…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 granted summary judgment in favor of appellee; appellant thereupon filed a motion fo…
-
Aurremma v. B-Thrifty Super Mkt., Inc., 133 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1961)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 127 So. 2d 682.…
Authorities Cited
- Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, 121 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1960)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Frona Mae Boone and Helen Goff, 85 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1956)
- Counne v. Saffan, 87 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1956)
- Weisberg v. Perl et ux., 73 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1954)
- Peek v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Donin v. Goss, 69 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1954)