R. W. STONER, APPELLANT,
v.
W. G., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 held that there is no right to a rehearing, and a denial of a motion for rehearing does not require the assignment of reasons.
Stoner appealed an order denying his motion for rehearing, arguing the trial judge failed to assign reasons for the denial. The appellee moved to dism…
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
MANN, Chief Judge.
Stoner, acting as his own attorney, filed an appeal from an order denying rehearing in a civil action. The appellee moved to dismiss. At argument on the motion, it appeared that Stoner’s complaint was directed solely to the failure of the trial judge to assign reasons for denial of rehearing. Such an explanation is unnecessary. It is not required by any rule. Stoner’s reliance on Younghans v. State, Fla. 1956, 90 So. 2d 308, is misplaced.1 It is true that the Supreme Court there stated that “It is axiomatic that the exercise of judicial discretion should never be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; and where the discretion is exercised in favor of denying to a person a basic and fundamental right, the reasons for so doing should be sound and they should be clearly stated.” 90 So. 2d at 310. There is no “basic and fundamental right” to rehearing, and denial without explanation is the common practice.
Since the final judgment was not rendered until the denial of a timely motion for rehearing, the appeal filed by Stoner is the appropriate means by which to seek review of the trial court’s actions. No transcript of proceedings prior to the denial of rehearing has been filed or requested, and it is represented to the court that the appellant questions only the denial of rehearing without assignment of reasons. On the basis of such a representation the motion to dismiss should be granted, with leave to seek reinstatement if the appellant intends, in good faith, upon an adequate record, to raise other questions on appeal.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . Stoner also cites Masser v. Dondon Operating Co., 1932, 106 Fla. 474, 145 So. 72, 79; State ex rel. Dillman v. Tedder, 1936, 123 Fla. 188, 166 So. 590; and Ellard v. Godwin, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 617, all of which are irrelevant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carty v. Carty, 436 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…even in these highly sensitive custody disputes. The reasons assigned by the court in its order of denial did not exhibit an abuse of judicial discretion and although instructive were harmless and not required by law. See R.W. Stoner v. W.G., Inc., 300 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Denial of the motion was not error. We note in the conclusory comments of Patti’s brief that she is not suggesting a remand for rehearing to adduce the additional facts contained in her motion. Instead, she seeks reversal and re…
-
Donohoe v. Alachua Cnty., 418 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…discretion of the trial court. Gant v. State, 216 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Donohoe’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a rehearing without explanation is likewise without merit. Stoner v. W. G., Inc., 300 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). AFFIRMED. BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1956)
- Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)
- Beulah M. Ellard v. Godwin, 77 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1955)
- State v. Tedder, 123 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1936)