Case ID: so2d_522/html/0104-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rick GELINAS and Linda Gelinas, Appellants/Petitioners, v. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, Appellee/Respondent.
    No. 87-1207.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    March 22, 1988.
    
      Robert D. Komer, Miami, for appellants/petitioners.
    John R. Dellagloria, City Atty., for appel-lee/respondent.
    Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ.
   ON RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

The respondent’s renewed motion to dismiss is granted on the authority of Paul v. City of Miami Beach, 519 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 518 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). As in both cases we certify the question presented:

WHEN A PARTY SEEKS APPELLATE REVIEW OF A NON-APPEALABLE ORDER, AND ASSUMING THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS TIMELY FILED IN THE LOWER TRIBUNAL, MUST THE NOTICE OF APPEAL BE FILED IN THE APPELLATE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER IN ORDER FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO TREAT THE NOTICE AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI?