The Third District Court of Appeal ruled today in Ross v. Ross, a case in which the lower tribunal denied a motion for rehearing filed by the former husband for being untimely. The former husband appealed, and the lower court was reversed because the former husband, who is incarcerated, did in fact certify that he placed the document in the hands of prison officials in a timely fashion, which satisfies F.R.C.P. 1.530(g). As such, the case was remanded for the lower court to consider the timely Motion for Rehearing.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
You would think after forty-seven thousand gazillion years of jurisprudence, litigators would be savvy enough to not argue the same re...
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen... -
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290... -
I don't know, I feel like we're getting a little Frank Jimenez chronic here, and yet more news keeps breaking. Now it's this , i... -
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Payne v. Payne , a case in which the parties sought dissolution of a seventeen year m...
-
Shuster & Saben Defeats US Bank & Douglas Zahm PA in Foreclosure Appeal In 2011, firm attorney Richard Shuster obtained the dis... -
In Atlantic Shores v. 507 South Street Corporation, here's the link , the court held that an objecting neighbor could not litigate a hei...
-
Tallahassee Police Department Cyber Crimes Unit tallahassee.com - www.tallahassee.com "Hard drive duplication is one of the first and m...
-
In Powell v. City of Sarasota, here's the link, http://www.2dca.org/opinion/September%2013,%202006/2D05-4850.pdf , the Second DCA held t...
-
"ANKARA, Turkey -- On Aug. 16, 2005, a CNN television news bulletin alerted viewers that computers at the network's New York and At...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét