GEORGE HELKER AND MARY HELKER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RUSSELL GOULDY AND MARY GOULDY, HIS WIFE, THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 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 court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal and treated the interlocutory order as a final appeal, extending the time for filing appeal papers.
Appellants filed an appeal from an interlocutory order. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal. The appeal was commenced on December 14, 1965.…
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 Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The motion of appellee The Prudential Insurance Company of America to dismiss the appeal is denied.
The chancellor’s order appealed' from was interlocutory. This appeal, final' in form, will be treated as interlocutory on authority of Mitchell v. Italian-American Club, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 228, and Washington Security Co. v. Tracy’s Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., Fla.App. 1965, 166 So.2d 680, no undue hardship to appellees having-been made to appear, by incident delay or otherwise.1
“Appeals to the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal are constitutionally guaranteed rights in this State. This being true, it is fundamental that statutes or rules regulating the exercise of suck rights should be liberally construed in favor of the appealing party and in the interest of manifest justice.” Robbins v. Cipes, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 521.
The time within which appellants may file the appeal papers, appellants’ brief and' appendix, as provided for by Rule 4.2 F.A.R. is hereby fixed at 15 days from the date of this order, and thereupon the appeal shall' proceed as provided for by the appellate-rules for such interlocutory appeal.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosen v. Hunter, 224 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…l appeal has been taken from post-decretal proceedings which are actually interlocutory in nature. This appeal, although final in form, will therefore be treated as a perfected interlocutory appeal on the authority of Helker v. Gouldy, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 536, and Burton v. Sanders, Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 591. See also Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 4.2. That order of the court which rescinded the foreclosure sale reads as follows: “2. That subsequent to the service of process upon Defendants at the c…
Authorities Cited
- Robbins v. Cipes, 181 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1966)
- Wash. Sec. Co. v. Tracy's Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., 166 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Meyer v. Abe Pitzele and Relia Pitzele, 122 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)