H. PAUL HETT, PETITIONER,
v.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, CATHERINE KOROBEY, WILLIAM KOROBEY AND MADISON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS; H. PAUL HETT, APPELLANT, V. CATHERINE KOROBEY, WILLIAM KOROBEY AND MADISON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 granted Hett's petition to withdraw the mandate and reconsider his timely motion for rehearing under the mailbox rule, but ultimately denied the motion for rehearing on its merits.
A motion for rehearing filed November 25, 1996, was timely under the mailbox rule, and upon reconsideration on the merits, the motion for rehearing was denied.
[1] A motion for rehearing is timely if filed within the applicable period under the mailbox rule, even if the prior order denying it as untimely must be withdrawn and recons…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHett filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Second District Court of Appeal and three judges; the Supreme Court transferred the petition to…
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 Timeliness Of Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By its order of November 14, 1997, in case number 89,541, the Supreme Court transferred the petition for writ of mandamus, filed by Hett against this court and Judges Schoonover, Frank and Quince, as respondents, to this court on the basis that “the issues involved ... are matters within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal, Second District.” Upon review of that petition, in what is now ease number 97-4861 in this court, we treat the petition as an application to withdraw and.recall the mandate in case number 95-4873, vacate the order therein of December 10,1996, denying as untimely the motion for rehearing filed by the appellant Hett on November 25, 1996, and for determination of the motion for rehearing on its merits.
After so treating the petition in case number 95 — 4873, we grant the relief requested on the ground that the motion for rehearing filed November 25, 1996, was in fact timely filed under the “mailbox rule.” See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992).
Pursuant to the foregoing, upon a consideration of the motion for rehearing filed November 25, 1996, on the merits thereof, it is ordered that the said motion for rehearing is hereby denied.
SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., GREEN, MELVIA B., and SHEVIN, ROBERT L., Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)