SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR TUETA, OTTO ROHRER, AND MARINE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, 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 appellate court dismissed an appeal regarding one order due to untimely filing and affirmed another order taxing attorney fees because no error was alleged or found.
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the first order due to the untimely notice of appeal. The second order taxing attorney fees for Marine Bank & Trust Company is affirmed as no error was alleged or found.
“Unfortunately for the appellant, the notice of appeal as to this order was not filed within the 60-day period prescribed by Rule 4.2(b), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction and cannot consider the appeal on this order.”
Establishes the reason for dismissing the appeal of the first order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed two orders taxing attorney fees. The notice of appeal for the first order, taxing fees for Victor Tueta, was filed late. The no…
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 has filed an interlocutory appeal from two orders entered by the lower court. The first order, filed February 3, 1966, taxed the attorney fees of Appellee Victor Tueta against appellant. Unfortunately for the appellant, the notice of appeal as to this order was not filed within the 60-day period prescribed by Rule 4.2(b), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction and cannot consider the appeal on this order.
The second order, filed February 28, 1966, taxed the attorney fees of Appellee Marine Bank & Trust Company against appellant. The notice of appeal as to this order was filed timely so this court has jurisdiction of the appeal on this order. The appellant has not alleged any error with respect to this order and, after an examination of the record, no error can be found. Therefore, the order of the lower court, filed February 28, 1966, concerning attorney fees for Marine Bank & Trust Company is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.