IN RE S. CHILDREN. IN RE MARY FRANCES CARLSON, APPELLANT
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 appeal from a juvenile court order that permanently committed two children for adoption and granted custody of two other children to their father. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the petition for rehearing was not timely filed, making the subsequent notice of appeal untimely.
No, the appeal was not timely filed because the petition for rehearing was not served within the allowable period, and thus did not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
“Because the time for filing a notice of appeal from the order was not extended for the period of the pendency of the petition for rehearing, as the latter was not timely served, this appeal was not taken within the appealable period.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for dismissing the appeal, linking the untimeliness of the rehearing petition to the untimeliness of the appeal itself.
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 appealed an order from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that permanently committed two children to the State Department of Publ…
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 Timeliness Of Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals from an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court permanently committing two of S.’s children to the State Department of Public Welfare adoption unit for subsequent adoption and further granting legal custody to the natural father of the two remaining children of S.
A petition for rehearing was filed .and served 61 days after the entry of the .above described order. Assuming, but not holding, that a petition for rehearing is proper in a proceeding before the Juvenile Court, it is apparent that the petition in this cause was not timely served.
Because the time for filing a notice of appeal from the order was not extended for the period of the pendency of the petition for rehearing, as the latter was not timely served, this appeal was not taken within the appealable period. Bannister v. Allen, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 907.
For the reason stated the appeal is hereby dismissed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bannister v. Allen, 127 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Terry v. Wamsley, 127 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)