249 So. 2d 42 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1971
In this interlocutory appeal appellants seek to review the trial court’s denial of several motions to quash certain witness subpoenas. It is stipulated that the order appealed from was dictated into the record by the trial judge but that no order or other writing, conforming to the trial judge’s oral ruling, was signed by the judge.
Under the foregoing circumstances the order appealed from is a non-appealable order and therefore this appeal must be dismissed.
Accordingly, this interlocutory appeal is dismissed ex mero motu.
. See, e. g., Perez v. City of Tampa (Fla.App.1966) 191 So.2d 302.
. (Fla.App.1965) 177 So.2d 260. See, also, State ex rel. Herring v. Allen (Fla.1966) 189 So.2d 363, and Braren v. Lawyers’ Realty Abstract Co. of Sarasota (Fla.App.1967) 196 So.2d 244.
. Specifically, see F.A.R. 4.2(b) which provides, “the notice of appeal, * * * shall be filed * * * within thirty days from the rendition of the * * * order, * * * sought to be reviewed.” (Italics supplied)
. See, F.A.R. 1.3, 32 F.S.A. 12 et seq.