STEPHEN VP. QUACKENBUSH, APPELLANT,
v.
TOWN OF PALM BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 appellate court dismissed an appeal because the appellant sought review of an order denying a rehearing, rather than the final decree of dismissal. The court held that reviewing the denial of rehearing would require considering the final decree, which was not under appeal, thus lacking a jurisdictional basis.
No, an appellate court cannot review an order denying a petition for rehearing in isolation from the final decree. Such a review requires consideration of the final decree and its record, which are not properly before the court if not themselves the subject of the appeal.
“The review sought by appellant relates to an order in effect denying his petition for rehearing and not to the final decree of dismissal.”
This quote establishes the specific order the appellant sought to have reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought review of an order that effectively denied his petition for rehearing. The underlying action resulted in a final decree of dismis…
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 Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
The review sought by appellant relates to an order in effect denying his petition for rehearing and not to the final decree of dismissal. Such a review cannot be had, because if this court is to determine the correctness of the ruling on the petition,, it is necessary that the final decree and the record upon which it is based be considered also. Since this requires consideration’ of a decree not here made the subject of attack, there accordingly arises no jurisdictional foundation upon which this court could afford to appellant the requested review. The appeal must therefore be dismissed. See Klemenko v. Klemenko, Fla., 1957, 97 So.2d 11; Finley v. Finley, Fla. 1958, 103 So.2d 191; McNary v. Hudson, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 73; Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings & Loan Association of Lakeland, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 603.
Appeal dismissed.
SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER, J.„ and WIGGINTON, JOHN, Associate-Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sherwood Colburn v. Highland Realty Co., Inc., 153 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…e and does not properly bring the final decree before [*734] this Court for review. See Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 1943, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So. 2d 175; Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, Fla.1960, 121 So. 2d 648; Quackenbush v. Town of Palm Beach, Fla.App., 151 So. 2d 348. Likewise, it is contended that the lower court had lost jurisdiction when it entered the “Second Amended Summary Final Decree”, and that, therefore, the appeal brings nothing here for review because the decree from which the appeal has been taken…
-
Bennett v. Zager, 387 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…the point raised in appellant’s brief. The appeal is subject to dismissal upon the following authorities: Mickler v. Smith, 111 So. 2d 457 (Fla.2d DCA 1959); Kaemmerlen v. Shannon, 119 So. 2d 315 (Fla.2d DCA 1960); Quackenbush v. Town of Palm Beach, 151 So. 2d 348 (Fla.2d DCA 1963); Frank v. Amara, 235 So. 2d 537 (Fla.lst DCA 1970). We have not overlooked, State v. Allen, 196 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1967), as distinguished by the Second District Court of Appeal in Bay Area News v. Poe, 364 So. 2d 830 (Fla.2d DCA 1978…
Authorities Cited
- McNARY v. Hudson, 110 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Williams v. Levine, 103 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1958)
- Oxford v. Polk Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Lakeland, 147 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Finley v. Coralee Russell Finley, 103 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1958)
- Klemenko v. Klemenko, 97 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1957)