ED LANE AUTO SALES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PAULINE WEINSTEIN, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1961-08-03
No. 61-415
Before HORTON, BARKDULL and LIEN DRY, JJ.
132 So. 2d 218 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1961)
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that the appeal was timely filed within the 60-day period provided by Fla. Stat. § 59.08, superseding the one-month limit for civil court of record appeals.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellee moved to dismiss an appeal from a civil court of record judgment, arguing it was filed 47 days after judgment. The appellant contended the ap…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee moved to dismiss this appeal from a judgment of the civil court of record upon the ground that the same was not timely filed. The notice of appeal was filed 47 days after the rendition of the judgment appealed.

Section 33.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides in part “ * * * that no matters so appealed shall be had later than one calendar month after the entry of (a) the judgment appealed * * * ” [Emphasis supplied.] Section 59.08, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that appeals shall be taken within 60 days from the entry of the judgment appealed. See, also, F.A.R. 3.2, subd. b, 31 F.S.A.

In Fuller v. Riley, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 499, this court held the provisions of Section 33.11, supra, controlled the time in which an appeal could be taken from the civil court of record. However, subsequent to the rendition of the opinion in the Fuller case, the Supreme Court of Florida decided a similar question contrary to the views expressed by this court in the Fuller case. In re Wartman’s Estate, Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 600. We conclude the principles announced in the Wartman case are controlling here. Accordingly, we recede *219from our holding in the Fuller case and upon the authority of In re Wartman’s Estate, supra, deny appellee’s motion to dismiss.

It is so ordered.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw