BRUCE B. BLOUNT, APPELLANT,
v.
L. O. HANSEN, AS TAX ASSESSOR FOR BROWARD COUNTY, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 dismissed an appeal because the notice of appeal was filed too late, exceeding the statutory time limit. The court noted that the issue of timeliness should have been raised earlier by a motion to dismiss to save the parties time and expense.
No, the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
“So the appeal is dismissed ex mero motu.”
Establishes the court's decision to dismiss the appeal on its own motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a notice of appeal 61 days after a final decree was entered, which declared a Florida statute unconstitutional. The statutory dead…
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 Constitutional Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The above cause came to this court on a notice of appeal from a final decree in which the chancellor held that Section 193.-201, Florida Statutes 1959, F.S.A., was unconstitutional and void.
The final decree was rendered 17 March 1961 and was filed for record the same day and recorded in the Chancery Order Book.
The notice of appeal was filed for record 17 May 1961 and recorded in the Chancery Order Book. So 61 days elapsed from the time the final decree was filed and recorded until the notice of appeal was filed and recorded, that is, 14 days in March, 30 days in April, and 17 days in May. The 16th day of May, the last day on which the notice of appeal could have been filed to give this court jurisdiction, was not a holiday. There was no petition for rehearing.
So the appeal is dismissed ex mero motu.
It is to be regretted that this was not brought to the attention of the court at the outset by a motion to dismiss therefore saving the litigants and attorneys a needless expenditure of time, money and effort.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, HOBSON, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Tr. Under Will of Grace E. Walker v. The First Nat'l Bank IN ST. Petersburg, 143 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…d. This rule with reference to service does not apply to the strict jurisdictional requirements with reference to the filing of the notice of appeal. See Fla.Stat. § 59.08 F.S.A.; Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(b), 31 F.S.A.; Blount v. Hansen, Fla.1961, 133 So. 2d 73; Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, Fla.1960, 121 So. 2d 648; Albert v. Carey, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 189; Dunham v. Pan American Bank of Miami, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 264; Braunstein v. Silhouette, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 436; Harris v. Conde…
-
Gerrald W. Finley v. State, 168 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)….1956, 87 So. 2d 586, 587. In Zeller v. Industrial Research, Inc., Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 616, the Supreme Court applied the “Sunday Rule” to constitutional certiorari proceedings. Rule 3.18 F.A.R. was implicitly applied in Blount v. Hansen, Fla.1961, 133 So. 2d 73. There the notice of appeal was filed on the 6lst day, the 60th day having fallen on a Monday. After noting that the last day upon which the notice of appeal could have been filed was not a holiday, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. This court…
-
Elliot L. Miller v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 407 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ays after the final court order as to the amount of fees owed, argue the merits of that decision by filing a notice of appeal from a post-judgment order of compliance. See, e.g., Blount v. Hansen, 116 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), appeal dismissed, 133 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1961); Alderman v. Puritan Dairy, Inc., 145 Fla. 292, 199 So. 44 (1940); Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b). Affirmed.…