LEONARD J. PERKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN J. PERKINS, 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.
This case involves an interlocutory appeal by the plaintiff-cross-defendant in a divorce suit challenging two post-decretal orders. The appellate court dismissed the appeal sua sponte, finding it lacked substantial merit.
No, the interlocutory appeal lacks substantial merit.
“In this interlocutory appeal we have carefully examined the record on appeal as permitted in this type of appeal by Rule 4.2(d) and find that this interlocutory appeal is without substantial merit.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the merit of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, plaintiff-cross-defendant in a divorce suit, appealed two post-decretal orders from the Circuit Court for Duval County. This appeal fol…
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 Final Decree Of Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal taken by the plaintiff-cross-defendant in a divorce suit from two post-decretal orders, one recorded and the other oral, of the Circuit Court for Duval County. The appellant previously had taken an appeal to this court • from the final decree of divorce entered in that suit, which appeal (Case No. D-59) was dismissed by this court sua sponte under Rule 6.13, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. In this interlocutory appeal we have carefully examined the record on appeal as permitted in this type of appeal by *312Rule 4.2(d) and find that this interlocutory appeal is without substantial merit. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4.2(c), the interlocutory appeal is dismissed on our own motion. So ordered.
CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and STURGIS and RAWLS, JJ., concur.