ORIGINAL CRISPY PIZZA OF MIAMI, HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANTHONY PALMERI, TRAVELERS 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, addresses whether an appeal taken 28 days after an industrial claims judge's order was timely under conflicting statutory deadlines. The court holds that the appeal was timely because new legislation extending the appeal period from 20 to 30 days became effective during the appeal window, benefiting the appellant.
The appeal is timely. Where an appeal is filed within the time permitted under the old statute, but new legislation becomes effective before the appeal deadline expires and extends the time for appeal, the appellant benefits from the extended deadline, making the appeal timely.
[1] A statutory amendment that enlarges the time for appeal, enacted before the expiration of the original appeal period, grants the full enlarged period for filing an appeal…
[2] Appeals from orders of the judge of industrial claims are governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court beginning October 1, 1979.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The appeal was not untimely, for within the time for appeal under the old statute, legislation became effective to enlarge the time for appeal, so granting appellant 30 days from September 20, 1979.”
The court's holding that intervening legislation extending the appeal deadline from 20 to 30 days made the timely appeal valid.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn order from the judge of industrial claims was entered on September 20, 1979. The notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 1979, which was 28 days …
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellees move to dismiss the appeal in this workmen’s compensation proceeding on the ground that the appeal is untimely, having been taken within 30 days after the order of the judge of industrial claims was entered, Chapter 79-312, Section 14, Laws of Florida,1 but not within 20 days, Section [*CXXX] 440.25(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.).2 The order was entered September 20, 1979, and the notice of appeal was filed October 18, 1979. The appeal was not untimely, for within the time for appeal under the old statute, legislation became effective to enlarge the time for appeal, so granting appellant 30 days from September 20, 1979. See Mazda Motors of America v. S. C. Henderson & Sons, 364 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The motion to dismiss is
DENIED.
MILLS, C. J., and ROBERT L. SMITH, Jr., and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Chapter 79-312 amended Section 440.25 to provide in new subsection (f):
Beginning on October 1, 1979 procedures with respect to appeals from orders of deputy commissioners shall be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court. Such an order shall become final 30 days after mailing of copies of such order to the parties, unless appealed pursuant to such rules. The provisions of paragraphs (a)-(e) shall apply only until September 30, 1979.
. Section 440.25(4)(a) provided before the 1979 amendment:
The compensation order rendered by the judge of industrial claims shall become final 20 days after the date copies of same are mailed to the parties at the last known address of each, unless within said time any interested party shall make and file with the commission or a judge of industrial claims an application for a review thereof by the commission in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF N. Miami Beach v. E. Shores Sales Co., 364 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Mazda Motors OF Am., Inc. v. S. C. Henderson & Sons, Inc., 364 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)