WIECZOREK
v.
WILLIAMS ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for rehearing, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was not timely filed and the lower court's attempt to extend the time for appeal was ineffective.
No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction because the petition for certiorari was not filed within the statutory time limit for appeals, and the lower court's order extending the time for appeal was invalid.
“However true this may be, we have no jurisdiction whatever in the matter because the decree complained of is a final decree which may be reviewed by us only on an appeal duly taken within the time fixed by statute.”
Establishes the court's lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness of appeal for a final decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a rehearing of a decree entered by the lower court. The decree was dated November 6, 1953. A petition for certiorari was filed i…
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 Time For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
We denied certiorari in this cause, without opinion, on February 23, 1954. See 30 F.S.A. Rule 34(b) of this Court.
A petition for rehearing is now before us urging that the decree of the lower court is manifestly erroneous and unconscionable, and should be reversed. However true this may be, we have no jurisdiction whatever in the matter because the decree complained of is a final decree which may be reviewed by us only on an appeal duly taken within the time fixed by statute. Moreover, even if the decree could be considered interlocutory; it is dated November 6, 1953, ninety days before the petition for certiorari was filed in this Court. The order of the Circuit Judge below purporting to extend the time for appeal was wholly ineffective either for that purpose or for the purpose of enlarging the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.
Rehearing denied.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garner v. Ward, 251 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1971)…of the letter of the law would defeat its purpose, or be absurd. Knight & Wall Co. v. Tampa Sand Lime Brick Co., 55 Fla. 728, 46 So. 285 (1908). This Court is aware of its duty to effectuate the legislative will. Overman v. State Board of Control, 71 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1954). In applying Fla.Stat. §§ 768.01 and 768.02, F.S.A., difficulties have arisen in situations involving broken families or families with step-relationships. The legislative intent with regard to the wrongful death statutes “is clear and unm…
-
Fla. Admin. Comm'n v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 351 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1977)…the petition. The time limitation of Rule 4.5(c)(1), Florida Appellate Rules, for filing a petition for review is jurisdictional and cannot be waived by the court. Shevin v. Public Service Commission, 333 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1976); Wieczorek v. Williams, 71 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1954); Harris v. Condermann, 113 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). The petition in this case was not filed within the time allowed and did not, therefore, vest jurisdiction. Prohibition is the appropriate procedure.9 Accordingly, the writ of proh…
-
Pressley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 367 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1979)…treet v. Davis, 219 So. 2d 34, 34-35 (Fla.1969); Russom v. State, 109 So. 2d 30, 31-32 (Fla. 1959); Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Boyd, 106 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla.1958); Columbia Cas. Co. v. McFee, 81 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1955); Wieczorek v. Williams, 71 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1954); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mack, 64 So. 2d 304, 307 (Fla.1952); State Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Adams, 338 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Flinchbaugh v. Burton, 312 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Hayes v. Stat…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence