Nunc Pro Tunc Order

729 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 109 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• State v. Carroll
  240 So. 2d 205· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-10-28 ·cited 14×
  Florida appealed the trial court's discharge of a defendant for lack of a speedy trial under Florida's speedy trial statute. The court reversed, holding that the defendant's own motion to dismiss the information tolled the three-term speedy trial period, and delay caused by the d
• McCARTNEY v. United States
  382 F.2d 116· 9th Cir.· 1967-08-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while it cannot modify a sentence, it can review the denial of a motion to modify a sentence to ensure the sentencing court's clear intent is carried out.
• Stupp v. Cone Bros. Contracting Co.
  135 So. 2d 457· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-11-22 ·cited 14×
  This case addresses whether a pending motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict tolls the appeal period under Florida law. The court held that such motions suspend the appeal deadline until disposition, adopting the federal approach rather than the Nebraska rule, and denied
• W. F. Sebel Co., Inc. v. Hessee. in re Fractman
  214 F.2d 459· 10th Cir.· 1954-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court lacked the authority to extend the statutory deadline for filing a claim, even under equitable principles, when the claim was filed after the three-month period prescribed by Section 355 of the Bankruptcy Act.
• In re Supernit
  186 F.2d 130· 3d Cir.· 1950-12-29 ·cited 14×
  A creditor's claim cannot be filed nunc pro tunc after the statutory period has expired, even if the claim was scheduled and the creditor participated in proceedings.
• Columbia OIL & Gasoline Corp. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  134 F.2d 265· 3d Cir.· 1943-01-25 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the application to take jurisdiction of a petition for review filed in another circuit, as the statutory deadline had passed and the petition was not properly before the court.
• R. W. Holding Corp. v. R. I. W. Waterproofing & Decorating Co., Inc.
  131 Fla. 424· Fla.· 1938-02-09 ·cited 14×
  R. W. Holding Corporation sought to foreclose a mortgage against R. I. W. Waterproofing & Decorating Company, which had been inadvertently omitted as a defendant in a prior foreclosure proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court held that the mortgagor could redeem only the parcel it s
• Kitchen v. State
  20 So. 3d 975· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-10-21 ·cited 13×
  John Kitchen appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), seeking additional jail time credit for time spent in county jail pending resentencing. The court holds that Kitchen is entitled to credit for jail
• The Florida BAR v. Orta
  689 So. 2d 270· Fla.· 1997-03-06 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Bar sought disbarment of Miguel A. Orta for ethical violations involving dishonesty and fraud committed during his suspension from practice. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the referee's recommendation to disbar Orta, finding multiple counts of misconduct involving
• United States v. Daniels
  902 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the indictment was valid because the grand jury's term was properly extended, and that the defendant's guilty plea was not coerced by promises of leniency.
• Clearwater Oaks Bank v. Plumtree
  477 So. 2d 1023· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-08-09 ·cited 13×·via Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment
  Clearwater Oaks Bank challenged a trial court's order granting a competing mortgagee (Plumtree) attorney's fees from an escrow account and a subsequent nunc pro tunc judgment creating a lien on that account. The court reversed the nunc pro tunc judgment as void due to untimely fi
• Wolgin v. Simon
  722 F.2d 389· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 13×
  A shareholder must submit a proposed amendment with a motion for leave to amend a complaint to preserve the right to amend, and conclusory allegations of futility are insufficient to excuse a demand on shareholders.
• John Crescent, Inc. v. Collins E. Peterson and Margaret E. Peterson
  401 So. 2d 1150· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-07-29 ·cited 13×
  The trial court erred by extending the mortgagors' right of redemption after this court's mandate had effectively reinstated the certificate of title, thereby expiring the redemption period.
• Hudson Kinsey v. State
  179 So. 2d 108· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-10-21 ·cited 13×
  Hudson Kinsey sought to reinstate a dismissed criminal appeal two years after his attorneys voluntarily dismissed it without his personal consent. The court held that an attorney's actions bind the client under Florida Appellate Rules, and the dismissal was properly entered, reje
• Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Blue Stack Towing Co.
  313 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1963-02-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a late claim filing due to lack of good cause, equitable principles require modification to protect the cargo claimant's rights in the limitation fund.
• Bartlett & Sons Co. v. Pan-American Studios, Inc.
  144 Fla. 531· Fla.· 1940-10-08 ·cited 13×·via Nunc Pro Tunc Correction
  The appellate court affirmed the lower court's orders, finding that the appeal was untimely filed. The court also held that clerical errors in a final decree can be corrected by the lower court at any time, and that the lower court correctly denied a motion for a final decree aft
• The City of Orlando v. Hewitt
  92 Fla. 933· Fla.· 1926-11-22 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error filed by the City of Orlando more than six months after judgment was entered in a damages suit brought by Clara C. Hewitt for wrongful street obstruction. The Court held that the failure to timely file a motion for new trial doe
• Carrion v. State
  235 So. 3d 1051· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-01-19 ·cited 12×
  A trial court must make an independent finding of competency and enter a written order, regardless of whether expert reports agree on competency. A trial court cannot rely solely on a stipulation or agreement that a defendant is competent, even when expert reports concur.
• Bain v. State
  211 So. 3d 139· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-02-08 ·cited 12×
  Appellant's conviction and sentence reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing and make an independent determination of competency before accepting his guilty plea, despite having ordered a competency evaluation.
• THE Florida BAR v. Hochman
  815 So. 2d 624· Fla.· 2002-04-04 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld a three-year suspension of attorney Alan Hochman for felony convictions related to misappropriation of client trust funds, but modified the effective date to relate back to his prior disciplinary suspension rather than the date of his criminal ple
• Carridine v. State
  721 So. 2d 818· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-12-16 ·cited 12×
  The Fourth District reversed an upward departure sentence because the trial court failed to sign the written reasons for departure as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(18), and the court cannot cure this procedural defect through a nunc pro tunc order. The c
• Weil v. Markowitz
  829 F.2d 166· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing defendant Strahan and that the issue of Rule 11 sanctions and nunc pro tunc entry of the settlement order required further clarification and consideration by the district court.
• Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones
  739 F.2d 1259· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-25 ·cited 12×·via Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment
  Even if an agent's actions could create coverage upon acceptance of a check, the subsequent conversation between the insured and the agent effectively cancelled any such coverage.
• United States ex rel. Jose Mireles v. Greer
  736 F.2d 1160· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a trial judge's initial doubt about a defendant's competency to stand trial can be dissipated by subsequent evidence and reports, and the judge is not automatically required to hold a hearing if that doubt is reasonably resolved.
• Blais v. Blais
  410 So. 2d 1365· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-17 ·cited 12×·via Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment
  The court held that the trial court erred in requiring the husband to maintain life insurance for the wife's benefit, as such provisions are generally considered postmortem alimony and can be unenforceable, especially concerning government-issued policies. Other awards were affir
• Torres v. United States
  621 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's claim for injuries arising from his military discharge classification is barred by the Feres doctrine, and that the allegations of a post-discharge tort failed to state a cause of action.
• Eaton v. Weaver Mfg. Co.
  582 F.2d 1250· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a state court's unappealed judgment dismissing claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, even if the grounds were not explicitly stated, acts as res judicata and bars relitigation of the jurisdictional issue in federal court.
• Harkins v. Wyrick
  552 F.2d 1308· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that any error in denying a pretrial competency hearing was cured by a subsequent evidentiary hearing, and that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Salazar v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist.
  538 F.2d 269· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 12×
  The district court had jurisdiction to grant a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, even if the motion itself was filed after the initial appeal period expired.
• Miller v. The United States
  531 F.2d 510· Ct. Cl.· 1976-03-17 ·cited 12×
  The Secretary of the Interior validly modified the park boundaries to exclude certain lands nunc pro tunc, meaning they are deemed never to have been taken.
• Surratt v. Fleming
  309 So. 2d 614· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-03-12 ·cited 12×
  In a mechanic's lien foreclosure case, the trial court vacated a judicial sale after the certificate of title was issued, finding the bid price inadequate and the sale unfair. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction to consider the motion post-appeal but reman
• Fields v. Fields
  291 So. 2d 663· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-03-26 ·cited 12×
  The court reversed a dismissal order entered nunc pro tunc for failure to prosecute because the lower court failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements of Florida Rule 1.420(e), which requires reasonable notice and an actual hearing on the motion to dismiss.
• Est. of William Goldstein v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  479 F.2d 813· 10th Cir.· 1973-06-18 ·cited 12×
  A nunc pro tunc order allowing an incompetent surviving spouse to elect against a will is valid under Colorado law, even if entered after statutory deadlines, if the delay was due to the spouse's condition.
• Woolley v. State
  193 So. 2d 706· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-11-30 ·cited 12×
  Dee Woolley appeals five convictions for obtaining money through worthless checks. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal sua sponte because Woolley failed to timely file separate notices of appeal, which were not filed until April 26, 1966—more than 90 days af
• Thacker v. State
  185 So. 2d 202· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-04-19 ·cited 12×·via Nunc Pro Tunc Correction
  Ray Charles Thacker, Jr. appeals the summary denial of his motion for relief challenging a resentencing that occurred without his presence. The court reversed, holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to be present at sentencing, even when the court claims it is merely
• Application of Nathaniel Grier
  342 F.2d 120· C.C.P.A.· 1965-03-11 ·cited 12×·via Nunc Pro Tunc Correction
  The court held that the Patent Office, in ex parte appeals, can concede claims to an appellant even after an appeal is filed, distinguishing this from the precedent set in In re Allen.
• Rawls v. United States
  331 F.2d 21· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a Section 4241 certificate, particularly one issued nunc pro tunc, does not have the legal validity to warrant continued detention of a youth offender after their statutory right to conditional release has accrued under the Youth Corrections Act.
• Communist Party OF THE United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd.
  277 F.2d 78· D.C. Cir.· 1959-07-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Subversive Activities Control Board's modified report was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and procedural defects could not be cured nunc pro tunc.
• TWO Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGINLEY
  266 F.2d 427· 3d Cir.· 1959-03-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district judge who vacated the temporary restraining order and dismissed the complaint lacked jurisdiction to do so, as the case required a three-judge court.
• State ex rel. Caraker v. Amidon
  68 So. 2d 403· Fla.· 1953-11-20 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a criminal court lacked jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc order forfeiting property in a lottery case because there had been no prior judicial adjudication with notice and hearing, and because the amount involved exceeded the court's jurisd
• Searle v. Glarum
  179 F.2d 974· C.C.P.A.· 1950-02-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Board of Interference Examiners correctly awarded priority of invention to the appellees because the appellant failed to sufficiently establish actual reduction to practice prior to the appellees' filing date.
• State v. Gene Nelson alias Eugene Nelson
  160 Fla. 744· Fla.· 1948-07-30 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's quashing of an information charging Gene Nelson as a second offender for sentencing purposes. The Court held that a prosecutor may file a second offender information after a defendant serves a sentence imposed without proper cons
• Hill v. Hawes
  132 F.2d 569· D.C. Cir.· 1942-10-12 ·cited 12×
  A trial court's vacating of a judgment and re-entry due to the clerk's failure to provide notice does not extend the time for filing an appeal.
• State ex rel. Pers. Fin. Co. v. Miles W. Lewis
  140 Fla. 86· Fla.· 1939-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an attorney cannot bind a client to dismiss a case on the merits without the client's consent, even through a praecipe for dismissal. The court granted prohibition to prevent enforcement of a dismissal order that was entered without the plainti
• Young v. Victory
  112 Fla. 66· Fla.· 1933-09-22 ·cited 12×
  A widow challenged enforcement of a mortgage held by a subsequent purchaser, claiming the original transaction with a fraudulent investment trust was void due to lack of authority to sell securities and systematic fraud. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decree
• Hendrix v. State
  228 So. 3d 674· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-10-06 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the trial court's oral pronouncement of competency was sufficient for fundamental error review, a written order is required, and thus remanded for entry of a nunc pro tunc written order.
• Raithel v. State
  226 So. 3d 1028· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-08-30 ·cited 11×·via Nunc Pro Tunc Determination
  Nicholas Paul Raithel was convicted of making a false bomb report after calling 211 while intoxicated. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a competency hearing and determination despite questions abou
• Brooks v. AMP Servs. Ltd. for the Walter & Anna Bronner Tr.
  979 So. 2d 435· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-04-23 ·cited 11×
  A Florida appellate court granted a petition for writ of certiorari, vacating a trial court's order that retroactively revoked a New York attorney's pro hac vice admission based on a technical deficiency in his good standing status at the time of application. The court held that
• Allied Roofing Indus., Inc. v. Denilo Venegas
  862 So. 2d 6· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-07-16 ·cited 11×
  Allied Roofing Industries, a dissolved corporation, filed a lien foreclosure action against the Venegases. After the trial court initially denied the Venegases' motion to dismiss, the court later vacated that order and dismissed the action with prejudice, citing Allied's dissolve
• Kiriazes v. State
  798 So. 2d 789· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-10-12 ·cited 11×
  This case addresses whether a trial court may impose standard probation conditions more than 17 months after sentencing. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal held that it may not, establishing that the failure to include mandatory probation conditions results in an incomple