DONALD H. VLIEGENTHART, M.D., ETC. ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
JOYCE M. GROVER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of an order of clarification entered pursuant to Petitioner’s motion for rehearing directed to an earlier order compelling discovery. The petition was filed more than thirty (30) days after rendition of the order compelling discovery. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(c). A motion for rehearing directed to such an interlocutory discovery order is not authorized and does not toll the time for seeking review. See, e.g., District School Board of St. Johns County v. Timoney, 524 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (motion for rehearing not authorized as to interlocutory order so time to file petition is not tolled); Longo v. Longo, 515 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (motions for rehearing directed to interlocutory orders are not authorized and do not toll time for filing appeal). Since the petition was not timely filed, the court is without jurisdiction.
PETITION DISMISSED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Biehle v. Biehle, 693 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…r in the instant case is plainly interlocutory. The problem for Mr. Biehle is that he filed an unauthorized motion for rehearing, which does not toll the time for seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order. See, e.g., Vliegenthart v. Grover, 575 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (motion for rehearing of interlocutory order is unauthorized and does not toll the time for seeking certiorari review). The trial court’s order was rendered on February 26, 1997. However, Mr. Biehle filed an unauthorized motion f…
-
Coldwell Banker Commercial v. Wightman, 649 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…the merits of the petition for writ of certiorari because it is untimely. Because a motion for rehearing for an interlocutory order granting discovery is unauthorized, it does not toll the time for seeking certiorari review. Vliegenthart v. Grover, 575 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In passing, we note that even if the motion for elarification/reconsideration were authorized, the motion was itself untimely because it was, according to Coldwell Banker, filed on June 28, 1994, well beyond ten days after the t…
Authorities Cited
- Dist. Sch. Bd. OF ST. Johns Cnty. v. Timoney, 524 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Longo v. Longo, 515 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)