Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Talley v. Canal Indemnity Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 28, 1990No. 89-3031Published

1ConcurrenceAnstead, Judge

I write separately only because there are conflicting decisions in this district as to whether an order denying a motion under Rule 1.540, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, is a final order subject to a motion for *1089rehearing under Rule 1.530. We have concluded that a motion for rehearing was not authorized, and therefore this appeal was not timely filed.

In Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), it was held that orders entered under Rule 1.540(b) are not subject to rehearing under Rule 1.530. The second district relied on Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 which specifies…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1972
  2. Francisco v. Victoria Marine ShippingDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  3. CLEARWATER FEDERAL S. & L. ASSOCIATION v. SampsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1976
  4. Potucek v. SmejaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  5. Intercoastal Marine Towers v. Suburban Bk.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API