THE BLACK AND DECKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A MARYLAND CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
IGNACIO HERRERO, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CARLOS P. HERRERO, DECEASED, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 275 So.2d 54, a decision certified by the District Court as passing on a question of great public interest, recited by that Court to be,
“Pursuant to the rule making powers given the Supreme Court under the Florida Constitution (F.S.A.Const. Art. V, § 2), is it a matter of judicial jurisdiction and therefore a question of judicial interpretation for the court to compute the time where a statute provides for a limitation period but is silent as to the method of computation if the last day of the time period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday?”
We have jurisdiction of the cause under the authority of Section 3(b)(3), Article V, Constitution of Florida (1973), F.S.A., and F.A.R. 4.6, 32 F.S.A.
After argument and upon consideration of the record and briefs, we hold that the District Court of Appeal has correctly decided the cause and its decision is adopted as the ruling of this Court.
Accordingly, certiorari is discharged.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON,' C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moorey v. Eytchison & Hoppes, Inc., 338 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…y or legal holiday the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday nor a legal holiday. Herrero v. Black and Decker Manufacturing Company, 275 So. 2d 54 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), opinion approved and certiorari discharged, 281 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1973). Therefore, if the last day of the limitations period was Saturday, November 1, 1975, the amended complaint which first named Mobil as a defendant was timely filed on Monday, November 3, 1975. In McMillen v. Hamilton, 48 So. 2d 162 (Fla…
-
Cycenas v. Sarasota Coca Cola Bottling Co. & Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 440 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…d if it is also shown that (1) the employee knew the representation to be false, (2) the employer relied upon the false representation and (3) such reliance resulted in consequent injury to the employer. See Georgetown Manor Furniture Co. v. Smith, 281 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1973); Higgins v. Trigil Repair, Inc., supra; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Provenzano, 394 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Doric Food Co. v. Allen, 383 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Blaine v. Paks Food Store, supra. REVERSED and REMANDED for fu…
-
Ludwig v. Glover, 357 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…lager, 244 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Stockslager v. Daly Aluminum Products, Inc., 246 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1971); Herrero v. Black and Decker Manufacturing Company, 275 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973); Black and Decker Manufacturing Company v. Herrero, 281 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1973); and Moorey v. Eytchison and Hoppes, Inc., 338 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976)). The problem, however, with applying that rule to the ten month period now under consideration is two-fold: First the ten month period is jurisdictional rathe…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Herrero v. The Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 275 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)