TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Perez v. City of Tampa

Gabriel PEREZ et ux. v. CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal corporation

Perez v. City of Tampa, 181 So. 2d 571 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 5, 1966
Docket
No. 6374
Judges
Andrews, Charles, Liles, Sherman, Smith
Citations
181 So. 2d 5711966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794
Cited by 5

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant City of Tampa moves to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff Gabriel Perez.

The plaintiff was the driver of an automobile which collided with a truck owned by the City of Tampa. Plaintiff’s wife Beatrice was a passenger in the plaintiff’s car. The complaint was in two counts, one alleging damage of the husband, and the other damages of the wife. The jury found for the City of Tampa as against the husband and for the wife against the City. The judgment for the wife was duly paid and satisfied.

Motion for new trial was filed by the husband, and while the same was pending and more than sixty days after the judgment was entered, he filed notice of appeal.

Florida Appellate Rule 1.3, 31 F.S.A., provides that a judgment is not considered as having been rendered if a timely motion for new trial is filed until said motion is disposed of. However, an appellant who files a notice of appeal before the entry of an order denying his motion for new trial is deemed to have waived or abandoned his own motion and thereby vested jurisdiction in the appellate court. State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson, Fla.1963, 156 So.2d 4 . Bannister v. Hart, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 853 .

Other points raised by the motion require reference to the record on appeal, which is *572 not yet filed in this Court. F.A.R. 3.6, subds. i & j (1).

Motion to dismiss denied.

LILES, Acting C. J., and SMITH, SHERMAN N., Jr., and ANDREWS, CHARLES O., Jr., Associate Judges, concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1966: 31969: 11983: 119662026peak 1966 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Third District187 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1966)
  2. York v. State232 So. 2d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
  3. Perez v. City of Tampa191 So. 2d 302 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
  4. Sanders v. McCaughey192 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
  5. Griffith v. State435 So. 2d 398 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Most recent

  1. Griffith v. State435 So. 2d 398 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
  2. York v. State232 So. 2d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
  3. Sanders v. McCaughey192 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
  4. Perez v. City of Tampa191 So. 2d 302 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
  5. State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Third District187 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson, 156 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1963) 42
Bannister v. Hart, 144 So. 2d 853 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list