CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND GEORGE A. HOF, 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 City of St. Petersburg appealed an apportionment order, and the appellee sought to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The court held that Memorial Day, as defined in the Florida Statute (last Monday in May) rather than the Appellate Rules definition (May 30), applies under the Rules of Civil Procedure, making the motion for rehearing timely filed. The court also ruled that apportionment orders are final, not interlocutory, and therefore appealable.
The court held that when the Rules of Civil Procedure refer to 'legal holidays,' they incorporate the definition from F.S. § 683.01, which defines Memorial Day as the last Monday in May, not May 30 as defined in the Appellate Rules. Therefore, the motion for rehearing was timely. Additionally, apportionment orders are final, appealable orders, not interlocutory orders.
[1] A motion for rehearing is timely filed when it is filed on the first business day following a weekend that includes a legal holiday.
[2] The definition of a legal holiday for purposes of the Rules of Civil Procedure is governed by Florida Statute § 683.01(1)(g), not by Florida Appellate Rule 1.3.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Rules of Civil Procedure do not define the term "legal holiday" and therefore we must look to Florida Statute § 683.-01 (1) (g) F.S.A., which makes Memorial Day the last Monday in May a legal holiday.”
Establishes that the statutory definition controls when the Rules of Civil Procedure use the term 'legal holiday'
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn order of apportionment was entered on May 17, 1972. The City of St. Petersburg filed a motion for rehearing on Tuesday, May 30, 1972. The issue was…
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 Tolling Of Appeal Time cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS OR QUASH APPEAL
Appellee, Peninsular Building Supply Company, filed its motion to dismiss or quash this appeal on the grounds that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The order appealed was entered on May 17, 1972. The last day for filing the motion for rehearing fell on Saturday, May 27, 1972. The motion was filed on Tuesday, May 30, 1972. The last Monday in May, 1972, was May 29th. Appellant contends that since Monday was a legal holiday under F.S. § 683.01(1) (g), F.S.A., its motion for rehearing was timely filed and consequently the time for filing its notice of appeal was tolled. Appellee contends that under Florida Appellate Rule 1.3, 32 F.S. A., Monday, May 29th, was not a legal holiday.
The dispositive question on this motion is whether or not the definition of Memo*230rial Day (May 30) as defined in Florida Appellate Rule 1.3 is controlling under Rule 1.090(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.
The Rules of Civil Procedure do not define the term “legal holiday” and therefore we must look to Florida Statute § 683.-01 (1) (g) F.S.A., which makes Memorial Day the last Monday in May a legal holiday.
We do not feel that we can read into the Rules of Civil Procedure the definition of Memorial Day as defined in the Appellate Rules. It would be helpful to the Bench and Bar if “legal holidays” as used in all of the judicial rules were uniform througtí-out, thereby eliminating any uncertainty and confusion as to exactly which holidays are to be considered legal holidays as used in all rules of our courts.
Not having the authority to read the definition of Memorial Day (May 30) as set forth in the Appellate Rules into the Rules of Civil Procedure, we must hold that under the Rules of Civil Procedure Memorial Day as defined in F.S. Section 683.01, F.S.A., as the last Monday in May is considered to be the legal holiday when such term is used in the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Appellee, Peninsular Building Supply Company, also contends that an order of apportionment under F.S. Section 73.-101, F.S.A., is an interlocutory order. We do not agree. We have not been cited nor have we through our research been able to find a judicial determination as to whether or not an apportionment order is interlocutory or final. However, an order apportioning a condemnation award was appealed to this court in Parks Building, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So.2d 830, and treated therein as an appeala-ble final order.
Appellee cites Florida Power Corporation v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 270 as authority that the order in question is interlocutory. The Griffin case, supra, is
distinguishable in that the order therein was an order of disbursement and not one of apportionment of funds.
For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss or quash is denied.
LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jones, 332 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…gal holiday. Since the term “legal holiday” is not defined by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the statutory definition applies. See City of St. Petersburg v. Division of Administration, Department of Transportation, State of Florida, Fla.App. (2d), 276 So. 2d 229 (1973). While the Florida Appellate Rules do not apply to criminal trials, we note that Rule 1.3 thereof lists Veteran’s Day, November 11 as a legal holiday and does not list October 27. The appellate rule also lists as a holiday “any other day that…
-
City OF ST. Petersburg v. Division OF Administration, 293 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ined in advance so that each [*785] party will be able to present such evidence as may be available to him. Then, the trial court will be in a position to enter a new order of apportionment. McNULTY, A. C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . Fla.App., 276 So. 2d 229. . The applicable statute was later amended to specifically permit the court to prorate taxes in a condemnation proceeding. See Section 73.061(2). . The able trial judge might have reached the same conclusion in response to the City’s petition for…1 / 2
-
The Night Flight, Inc. v. Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth., 668 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…to the landowners. The order fully and finally adjudicated the only issue between these parties. It was a final order which commenced the running of the thirty-day period to appeal. See City of St. Petersburg v. Division of Admin., Dep’t of Transp., 276 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Hatch v. Minot, 369 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, dismissed, 373 So. 2d 458 (Fla.1979). The notice of appeal, filed August 9, 1994, is therefore untimely, and we dismiss this appeal as to the order of August 10, 1993, for lack…
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
- Fla. Power Corp. v. Griffin, 150 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Parks Bldg., Inc. v. Palm Beach Cnty. & Fontaine Fox & Edith Fox, 144 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)