Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 79-2029
| Decision Date | 22 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2029,79-2029 |
| Citation | 380 So.2d 503 |
| Parties | AGRICO CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Freeport Sulphur Company, Division ofFreeport Minerals Company, and Sulphur Terminals Company, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
The Motion to Dismiss the cross-appeals in this case squarely raises the question of whether the time limit for taking a cross-appeal under the present appellate rules is jurisdictional. This court previously denied motions to extend the time for serving the instant notices of cross-appeal, recognizing that the time period might well be jurisdictional. The record herein reflects that which is undisputed by the parties: appellees Freeport's and Sulphur Terminals Company's notices of cross-appeal (unless the time was tolled or extended) were untimely served.
The method of initiating a cross-appeal under the "new" (1977) rules of appellate procedure is by serving a notice of cross-appeal within ten days of the main notice of appeal or within thirty days of rendition of the order appealed from, whichever is later. 1 Under the "old" (1962) rules, a cross-appeal was initiated by filing a cross-assignment of error within ten days after the appellant had filed his assignments of error. 2 Unlike the strict jurisdictional construction given the time limit as to the main appeal, under the old appellate rules the ten-day time limit for filing cross-assignments of error was considered non-jurisdictional and, hence, could be extended. 3 We have been cited, and have found, no cases which decide whether the time period for initiating a cross-appeal under the new appellate rules is jurisdictional.
Cross-appellee argues that because the new rules refer to a notice of cross-appeal, the time limit should be considered jurisdictional as with the notice of appeal. Cross-appellant points out that the new rules refer to serving the notice of cross-appeal in contrast to filing a notice of appeal, arguing that serving is not a jurisdictional event. Cross-appellant further argues that the appellate court already has jurisdiction by virtue of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4
We are of the opinion that the time for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peltz v. District Court of Appeal, Third Dist.
...a notice of cross appeal is not jurisdictional and may be extended by the appellate court. Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So.2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass'n v. Forte, 379 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA Arvin Peltz's original notice......
-
Breakstone v. Baron's of Surfside, Inc.
...389 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Safeco Ins. Co. v. Rochow, 384 So.2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Agrico Chem. Co. v. Department of Envtl. Regulation, 380 So.2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass'n v. Forte, 379 So.2d 1334 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).2 It should be noted, howev......
-
County Sanitation v. Ross
...filing a notice of cross-appeal has been held nonjurisdictional and may be extended by the court. Agrico Chemical v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association v. Forte, 379 So.2d 1334 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). Safeco Insuranc......
-
City of Hialeah v. Martinez
...(Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Safeco Insurance Company v. Rochow, 384 So.2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So.2d 1334 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), and since th......