Farrell v. Bendix Corp.

Decision Date16 January 1970
Docket NumberNo. 69--870,69--870
Citation232 So.2d 419
PartiesAndrew V. FARRELL, Appellant, v. BENDIX CORPORATION, George Henry Haskins, Jr., and Edward Joseph Cerro, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

WALDEN, Judge.

We had earlier dismissed appellant's appeal because of untimeliness, pursuant to Florida Appellate Rules, 1962 Revision, 3.2(b). Appellant asserts that our decision was incorrect because the last day upon which the appeal could be filed, Friday, December 26, 1969, was a legal holiday and hence appellant was entitled to additional time to the end that the appeal which was actually filed on December 29, 1969, became timely.

The essential question deals with an interpretation of Florida Appellate Rule 3.18, Computation of Time, and more specifically the provision:

'* * * If an act be required to be performed on a day certain and such day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the act shall be performed on the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor a legal holiday.'

It appears that the County Commission of Brevard County did declare that December 26, 1969, was a holiday. It further appears that by Executive Order No. 11503, the President declared that December 26, 1969, would be a holiday for Federal employees. Thus, at first blush it would seem that appellant's position is meritorious. However, we notice that the Florida Appellate Rules govern us and all proceedings before us, Florida Appellate Rule 1.1. Further, Florida Appellate Rule 1.3 specifically defines legal holidays as follows:

"Legal Holiday' means New Year's Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day (May 30th), July 4th, Labor Day, General Election Day, any state-wide primary election day, Veteran's Day (November 11th), Thanksgiving Day, Christmas, and any Monday immediately following a Sunday upon which one of the foregoing holidays falls.'

December 26, 1969, is not a legal holiday within that definition. Thus, reading Florida Appellate Rule 3.18 in pari materia with Florida Appellate Rule 1.3, it is our opinion that December 26, 1969, was not a legal holiday under appellate practice and that appellant was required to file his notice of appeal on or before that date in order to vest this court with jurisdiction.

We notice that statutory legal holidays of this state are numerous. See 30 Fla.Jur., Sundays and Holidays, § 3. They differ in some instances from the Rule definition and include, among others, Robert E. Lee's birthday, Jefferson Davis' birthday, Farmers' Day and, in certain cities and towns, Shrove Tuesday. According to the appellant's position, as we understand it, return days falling upon such 'legal holidays' would entitle him to additional time to file his notice of appeal. This is clearly contrary to court practice. We also suppose that the Governor and City and County Commissions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Pullano v. City of Bluefield
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1986
    ...Monte, 220 Cal.Rptr. 411 (1985); Mandel v. Hodges, 54 Cal.App.3d 596, 127 Cal.Rptr. 244, 90 A.L.R.3d 728 (1976); Farrell v. Bendix Corp., 232 So.2d 419 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1970); Brown v. Bernard, 374 So.2d 127 In City of El Monte, the governor of California in an executive order had declared ......
  • Regency Baptist Temple v. Insurance Co. of North America, DD-277
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 1977
    ...Clark v. Edwards, 234 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. den. 239 So.2d 246 (Fla.1970).9 332 So.2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).10 232 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).11 30 Fla.Jur., Sundays and Holidays, § ...
  • Crane v. Simpson, FF-128
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 13, 1977
    ...Clark v. Edwards, 234 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. den. 239 So.2d 246 (Fla.1970).9 332 So.2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).10 232 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).11 30 Fla.Jur., Sundays and Holidays, § ...
  • Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 6, 1973
    ...remain in effect as rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.' See also Fort v. Fort, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 69 and Farrell v. Bendix Corp., Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 419. From the foregoing it is our view that the statute is basically an appellate rule; it conflicts with Rule 4.2, F.A.R., in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT