LAUDRAMATION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
UNIFORMS FOR INDUSTRY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1973-04-24
No. 72-1465
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
276 So. 2d 535 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order. The Supreme Court of Florida has held: “Our rules as currently amended do not permit motions for rehearing directed to interlocutory orders. . . . ” Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., Fla. 1972, 263 So.2d 1, 4. Therefore, as the Wagner case held that an improperly filed petition for rehearing does not operate to toll the time for filing an interlocutory appeal, and the instant appeal was filed 36 days after the rendition of the trial court’s emergency restraining order, we find that we have no jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Griffin v. Fla. Citrus Comm'n, 42 Fla. Supp. 4 (Lake Cty. Cir. Ct. 1975)
    …ociates, Inc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972); Home News Publishing Co. v. U-M Publishing, Inc., 246 So. 2d 117 (1st D.C.A. 1971); Southwest Electric Supply v. Barrfield, 302 So. 2d 810 (2d D.C.A. 1974); Laundermation Corp. v. Uniforms For Industry, Inc., 276 So. 2d 535 (3rd D.C.A. 1973); Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Seminole County, 302 So. 2d 168 (4th D.C.A. 1974), the court holds that the petition for rehearing, not [*8] being directed to a final judgment on the merits, but rather to an interlocutory order, is not…
  • Tedesco v. Scott, 308 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
    …earing directed to interlocutory orders. Therefore, such a motion cannot operate to toll the filing of an interlocutory appeal. Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972) ; Laudramation Corp. v. Uniforms For Industry, Inc., 276 So. 2d 535 (Fla.App.1973). The instant appeal was filed 110 days after the rendition of the interlocutory order appealed from. The intervening motion for a rehearing filed by the appellant did not serve to toll the thirty-day period for the filing of an inter…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw