Frank v. Amara

5 Citing cases

  1. Bland v. Mitchell

    245 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1970)   Cited 18 times

    223 So.2d 365 (Fla.App., 1969). 235 So.2d 537 (Fla.App., 1970). See also Odum v. Morningstar, 158 So.2d 776 (Fla.App., 1953).

  2. Bennett v. Zager

    387 So. 2d 382 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    The appellee did not respond to 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.1st 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).

  3. Southwest Electric Supply v. Banfield

    302 So. 2d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 4 times

    An order denying a motion to set aside an order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) RCP is an interlocutory order. Frank v. Amara, Fla.App.1st, 1970, 235 So.2d 537. A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order does not toll the time for seeking review of such order. Home News Publishing Company v. U-M Publishing, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1971, 246 So.2d 117; Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner Associates, Inc., Fla. 1972, 263 So.2d 1. The appeal, having been taken more than thirty days after the rendition of the order, is untimely.

  4. Cutler Ridge Corp. v. Green Springs

    249 So. 2d 91 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 8 times

    To begin with, an interlocutory appeal is the proper means to review an order granting a motion to vacate and reinstating cross-claims. Odum v. Morningstar, Fla.App. 1963, 158 So.2d 776, 778; Frank v. Amara, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 537, 538. The general principles governing the motion to vacate under Rule 1.540 include the rule that the motion is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.

  5. Reizen v. Florida National Bank at Gainesville

    237 So. 2d 30 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 9 times
    Holding service of papers upon attorney was an adequate predicate for civil contempt judgment, whether or not client had notice

    A review of the record makes it clear that appellant's petition to set aside the May 28 orders comes within the purview of Rule 1.540(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A., the gist of appellant's assault on the May 28 orders being that the same are void for want of jurisdiction. The court below did have jurisdiction under the cited rule to entertain appellant's petition to set aside the May 28 orders, and under our practice an order either granting or denying a petition or motion under the cited rule is reviewable on appeal. Odum v. Morningstar, 158 So.2d 776 (Fla.App. 1963); State ex rel. Avery v. Williams, 222 So.2d 477 (Fla.App. 1969); and our recent opinion in Frank v. Amara, Fla.App., 235 So.2d 537, Opinion filed May 26, 1970. While we hold that we do have jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal, it is our ruling that the order appealed from herein, that is, the order refusing to set aside the May 28 orders of contempt, attachment, and commitment, must be affirmed.