SOUTHWEST ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BILL BANFIELD, D/B/A BILL'S ELECTRIC, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tolling Of Appeal Time cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this interlocutory appeal since the same was untimely filed.
Appellant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) RCP to set aside an order of dismissal for lack of prosecution. This motion was denied on February 4, 1974. Instead of timely appealing this order by interlocutory appeal, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on February 25, 1974. Appellant filed its notice of appeal on March 22,1974.
An order denying a motion to set aside an order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) RCP is an interlocutory order. Frank v. Amara, Fla.App.1st, 1970, 235 So. 2d 537. A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order does not toll the time for seeking review of such order. Home News Publishing Company v. U-M Publishing, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1971, 246 So. 2d 117; Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., Fla. 1972, 263 So. 2d 1. The appeal, having been taken more than thirty days after the rendition of the order, is untimely.
Appeal dismissed sua sponte.
BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. S. Sanitation Serv., Inc., 370 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…e that it was “with prejudice” and as such it constitutes a nonfinal order, appeal-able as an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. (1962) 4.2(a). Reilly v. Fuss, 170 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); ef., Southwest Electric Supply v. Banfield, 302 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). A motion for rehearing (he>*e a motion for reconsideration) directed to an interlocutory order will not suspend rendition of that order, and thus, has no effect on the time for filing a [*1201] notice of appeal. Wagner v. Wagner,…
-
Khem-Troll, Inc. v. Edelman, 351 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…hat is what the Supreme Court said in Bland v. Mitchell, supra. We would have dismissed this appeal as untimely since the petition for rehearing would not have extended the time for filing notice of appeal. See Southwest Electric Supply v. Banfield, 302 So. 2d 810 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). However, in the Sampson case the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between orders entered before and after final judgment. Therein the court states: “An interlocutory order entered after judgment, post decretal order, is not…
-
AETNA Life Ins. Co. & Aerodex, Inc. v. DeANGELIS, 317 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…f July 5, 1973 determining this cause to be a proper class action. It follows that the subsequent order denying what in effect was a second motion for rehearing is not an ap-pealable order. Southwest Electric Supply, Inc. v. Banfield, Fla.App. 1974, 302 So. 2d 810; Florida Living for Retired v. Retirement Hotel Assoc., Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 83. We do not imply, of course, that the trial court may not reconsider the propriety of class action status to this proceeding at a later time. The order of July 5, 1…
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
- Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- Home News Publ'g Co. v. U-M Publ'g, Inc., 246 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Frank v. Amara, 235 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)