From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frantz v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 28, 2000
772 So. 2d 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction "[b]ecause a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion for relief from judgment is not authorized, [so] the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal"

Summary of this case from Advanced Biomedical, Inc. v. 1551 Props.

Opinion

No. 1D00-2401.

Opinion filed November 28, 2000.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County, L. Ralph Smith, Jr., Judge.

Appellant, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


Because a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion for relief from judgment is not authorized, the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. See Intercoastal Marina Towers, Inc. v. Suburban Bank, 506 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Talley v. Canal Indem. Co., 558 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (Anstead, J., concurring). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

ERVIN, LAWRENCE, and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Frantz v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 28, 2000
772 So. 2d 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction "[b]ecause a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion for relief from judgment is not authorized, [so] the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal"

Summary of this case from Advanced Biomedical, Inc. v. 1551 Props.
Case details for

Frantz v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:PHILLIP R. FRANTZ, Appellant, v. MICHAEL W. MOORE, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Nov 28, 2000

Citations

772 So. 2d 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Wood v. Wood

("Because motions for rehearing directed toward orders denying rule 1.540(b) motions are generally not…

Williams v. Crosby

Upon consideration of the appellant's response to the Court's order of October 10, 2005, the Court has…