EMORY G. RICH, PETITIONER,
v.
HARPER NEON CO., INC., 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 District Court of Appeal, Second District, denied a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of an apportionment order in an eminent domain case. The court found that certiorari was not an available remedy because the petitioner had a right to appeal, which was not timely filed.
No, a writ of certiorari is not an appropriate remedy in this situation because the petitioner had a statutory right to appeal the apportionment order, and the failure to timely file that appeal precludes review by certiorari.
“This petition for writ of certiorari is directed to an order of apportionment in an eminent domain case allocating the condemnation award for certain property between petitioner-owner and respondent-lessee.”
Establishes the nature of the case and the order being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner, a property owner, sought review by writ of certiorari of an order apportioning a condemnation award between himself and the respondent…
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 Appeal Deadlines cases and more on FLexlaw
This petition for writ of certiorari is directed to an order of apportionment in an eminent domain case allocating the condemnation award for certain property between petitioner-owner and respondent-lessee.
This is a companion case to two appeals filed by the same parties, Fla.App., 147 So.2d 175, which we have this day dismissed because it was appealed from an order denying petition for rehearing, a non-appealable order, and Fla.App., 147 So.2d 174, which we have dismissed because the appeal was not taken within the 30 day period as required by the eminent domain statute, F.S. § 73.14, F.S.A.
The petitioner’s remedy was by appeal, which, unfortunately was filed too late to be effective. We are not authorized to permit a review by certiorari where the appeal was taken too late. In addition thereto, the petition for certiorari, if available to review the order complained of, *177should have been filed also within the 30 day period provided for review under § 73.14. See Taylor v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla.App.1961. 131 So.2d 504.
Certiorari denied.
SHANNON, C. J., and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emory G. Rich v. Harper Neon Co., Inc., 147 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…order appealed became final on July 18, 1962, upon denial of appellant’s petition for rehearing. Notice of Appeal was filed in the lower court on September 11, 1962. This appeal is a companion case to the cases involving the same parties, Fla.App., 147 So. 2d 176, a petition for writ of cer-tiorari, Fla.App., 147 So. 2d 175, an appeal directed solely to the aforementioned order denying appellant’s petition for rehearing, both of which we shall deny and dismiss respectively in separate opinions to be filed th…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Duval Cnty., 131 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Emory G. Rich v. Harper Neon Co., Inc., 147 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Emory G. Rich v. Harper Neon Co., Inc., 147 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)