Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis

7 Citing cases

  1. Trandworld, Inc. v. Rubin

    No. 3D20-1669 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2021)

    Petition dismissed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c)(1) (providing that a petition for certiorari must "be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed"); see also Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So.3d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (dismissing untimely petition for lack of jurisdiction).

  2. Neil v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.

    No. 1D19-3481 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2020)

    DISMISSED. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Lewis, 122 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (noting that rule 2.514(b) does not apply because 30-day time period for filing petition for writ of certiorari is triggered by rendition of the order rather than service of the order). OSTERHAUS, KELSEY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

  3. Gonzalez-Carone v. Lance & Linda Neibauer Joint Trust

    232 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    " The thirty day time period is jurisdictional. Under section 59.081(2), Florida Statutes (2017), the failure to timely invoke the jurisdiction of a reviewing court "shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause." See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So.3d 504, 505–06 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that because the petition for writ of certiorari was filed thirty-five days after rendition of the order to be reviewed, the petition is untimely and this Court is therefore without jurisdiction).Here, Rule 9.

  4. Gonzalez-Carone v. Lance & Linda Neibauer Joint Tr.

    No. 3D17-1842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2017)

    " The thirty day time period is jurisdictional. Under section 59.081(2), Florida Statutes (2017), the failure to timely invoke the jurisdiction of a reviewing court "shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause." See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So. 3d 504, 505-06 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that because the petition for writ of certiorari was filed thirty-five days after rendition of the order to be reviewed, the petition is untimely and this Court is therefore without jurisdiction). Here, Rule 9.

  5. C. M. v. Dep't of Children & Families

    208 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    Since its adoption in 2012, there have been a handful of cases interpreting it, almost all of which involved the untimely filing of a notice of appeal or petition for certiorari, both of which have 30–day jurisdictional deadlines that run from the rendition of the order to be reviewed. See Johnston v. State , 202 So.3d 976, 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (notice of appeal); Medley Plaza, Inc. v. Rama Fund, LLC , 196 So.3d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (notice of appeal); Donaldson v. State , 136 So.3d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (notice of appeal); Matheny v. Indian River Fire Rescue , 174 So.3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (petition for certiorari); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis , 122 So.3d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (petition for certiorari).Although no case has addressed the new rule's application to a court's briefing order, no reason exists to upset the apple cart by interpreting the new rule differently than its predecessors.

  6. Medley Plaza, Inc. v. Rama Fund, LLC

    196 So. 3d 512 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    514(b) affords no additional time when a rule ... requires a party to act within a specified time after rendition of an order.Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So.3d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).Because Medley Plaza filed its notice of appeal on June 6, 2016, thirty-five days after rendition of the order denying rehearing, the notice of appeal is untimely.

  7. Matheny v. Indian River Fire Rescue

    174 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Because the filing deadline set forth in Rule 9.100(c) is jurisdictional, and Petitioner did not meet the deadline, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So.3d 504, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ; see also § 59.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2014) ( “Failure to invoke the jurisdiction of any such court within the time prescribed by such rules shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause.”).On jurisdictional screening, this Court entered an order requiring Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely under Rule 9.100(c).