GIDEON EZEKIEL MCDANIELS, APPELLANT,
v.
DAISY ALICE MCDANIELS, 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 reversed an amended final decree because the petition for rehearing was not timely filed in the lower court, thus precluding the lower court from legally entertaining it. The court directed the reinstatement of the original final decree.
No, the petition for rehearing was not timely served. Therefore, the lower court was precluded from legally entertaining the petition and issuing an amended final decree.
“Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 3.16, 31 F.S.A., the petition for rehearing was not timely served in the lower court and said court was therefore precluded from legally entertaining the same”
Establishes the primary legal basis for the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed a petition for rehearing in the lower court after a final decree was entered. The record showed that this petition was not served w…
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.
Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 3.16, 31 F.S.A., the petition for rehearing was not timely served in the lower court and said court was therefore precluded from legally entertaining the same1 and the amended final decree must be reversed. Although the point was not raised by appellant, nevertheless, the record is before this court and the date of the final decree and date of filing petition for rehearing shown therein reveals the failure to. comply with the above stated Rule. There is no showing that said cause falls within, any of the provisions of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.38, 30 F.S.A.
Therefore, the order appealed is reversed and the Chancellor is directed to reinstate-the original final decree.
W1GGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby v. Speight, 217 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…chie, Fla.App., 181 So. 2d 725 (1966) we held that, where a motion to set aside a decree was filed too late under the rules, the court lost jurisdiction to act upon the motion. To the same effect see our decision in McDaniels v. McDaniels, Fla.App., 180 So. 2d 467 (1965). Since both the defendant’s motion for clarification and the court’s own motion for clarification and modification were unauthorized under the applicable rules, the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order appealed from, we must, of cours…
-
Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. William Ritchie et ux., 181 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…proceeding. RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur. . Rule 1.5(d), 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure. . Batteiger v. Batteiger (Fla.App.1959), 109 So. 2d 602; Jappe v. Heller (Fla.1953), 65 So. 2d 302; McDaniels v. McDaniels (Fla.App.1965), 180 So. 2d 467. . Cortina v. Cortina (Fla.1957), 98 So. 2d 334. . State ex rel. Huntley Bros., Inc. v. Gooding (Fla.App.1963), 149 So. 2d 55, 57. See also Lehman, Gov-Co. of Jacksonville v. Spencer Ladd’s Inc. (Fla.1965), 182 So. 2d 402, opinion filed November 3…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Orneta M. Quigley v. Quigley, 463 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1985)…exclude orders of alimony support from the scope of Florida’s URESA. Chapter 88 had been construed to include both alimony and child support pri- or to enactment of the 1979 amendments. Thompson v. Thompson, 93 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1957); Cox v. State, 180 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Clark v. Clark, 139 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); 1977 Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 077-77 (July 26,1977). The legislature is presumed to be cognizant of the judicial construction of a statute when contemplating making changes in the sta…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ganzer v. Ganzer, 84 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1956)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Huntley Bros., Inc. v. Honorable Marion W. Gooding, 149 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)