Florida Statute 59.13 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 59
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 59.13

59.13 Supersedeas on petition for certiorari.—When it appears to the trial court that a petition for certiorari has been or is about to be applied for in an appellate court, the trial court may grant a supersedeas upon petitioner giving a good and sufficient bond, conditioned that the petition shall be duly presented to the appellate court within the time prescribed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and to pay all costs, damages, and expenses occasioned by reason of the stay of proceedings with such other and further conditions as may be fixed by the trial court in the event the order or judgment for which a review is sought is not quashed, modified or reversed.

History.—ss. 1, 7, Feb. 10, 1832; Feb. 17, 1833; Feb. 12, 1836; ss. 3, 4, ch. 521, 1852; RS 1272, 1458; s. 1, ch. 4917, 1901; GS 1701, 1909; RGS 2911, 3170; CGL 4621, 4962; s. 13, ch. 22854, 1945; ss. 3, 5, ch. 71-316.

Note.—Consolidation with former ss. 67.04 and 67.05.

F.S. 59.13 on Google Scholar

F.S. 59.13 on CourtListener

Amendments to 59.13

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 59.13

Total Results: 19

Wilson v. Sandstrom

317 So. 2d 732

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 1975 | Docket: 2448127

Cited 40 times | Published

the court. This statute was incorporated in F.S. § 59.13, which, in turn, was incorporated as Rule 5.1,

Horn v. Horn

73 So. 2d 905, 1954 Fla. LEXIS 1766

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 1954 | Docket: 1795969

Cited 12 times | Published

Court. Rule 35 of this Court, 30 F.S.A., and Section 59.13, F.S. 1951, F.S.A., provide that every appeal

Empress Homes, Inc. v. Levin

201 So. 2d 475

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 1967 | Docket: 1182712

Cited 6 times | Published

in a supersedeas bond issued pursuant to F.S.A. § 59.13, which section does not mention attorneys' fees

Larson v. Higginbotham

66 So. 2d 40, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1368

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1953 | Docket: 1238345

Cited 6 times | Published

rule 35(e), 30 F.S.A. Rules of Supreme Court, section 59.13, F.S.A., has filed here a motion to review,

Bernstein v. Bernstein

43 So. 2d 356, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1056

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 1949 | Docket: 3265837

Cited 6 times | Published

a bond is required to be given pursuant to Section 59.13, F.S. 1941, as amended, *Page 358 F.S.A., the

Lewis v. Lewis

66 So. 2d 260, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1405

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 1953 | Docket: 356437

Cited 5 times | Published

for or post supersedeas bond as provided by Section 59.13(5), F.S.A. We have no difficulty in determining

In Re Wartman's Estate

128 So. 2d 600

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 1961 | Docket: 1756970

Cited 4 times | Published

Rules 5.1, F.A.R. through 5.11, F.A.R. and Section 59.13, Florida Statutes (1959), F.S.A. [12] "* *

Carillon Hotel v. Rodriguez

124 So. 2d 3

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 1960 | Docket: 1415967

Cited 4 times | Published

review a good and sufficient bond, as provided in § 59.13 of chapter 59, conditioned to pay the amount of

Luckhardt v. Pardieck

142 So. 2d 749, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 2985

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 1962 | Docket: 60205566

Cited 2 times | Published

Florida Appellate Rule 5.5, 31 F.S.A., and Section 59.13(1), Florida Statutes, F. S.A. After hearing

Hussein v. Bevins

40 So. 2d 452, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1376

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1949 | Docket: 3270609

Cited 2 times | Published

reviewed upon motion. See Sup.Ct. Rule 35(e) and Section 59.13(6), F.S. 1941, F.S.A. When a party to an appeal

Forbes v. Moore (In re Moore)

559 B.R. 243

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2016 | Docket: 65789177

Published

16, 2014) (quot-ing 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13(3)(c) (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2002) ("A Rule 59

Aetna Insurance Co. v. Buchanan

372 So. 2d 172, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14842

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 1979 | Docket: 64570776

Published

entered pursuant to Rule 9.310, but pursuant to Section 59.13, Florida Statutes (1977). Appellee argues that

Green v. Green

254 So. 2d 802, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5788

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1971 | Docket: 64523192

Published

of the Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. and § 59.13, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Appellant argues that Price

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville

234 So. 2d 736, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6563

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 1970 | Docket: 64514427

Published

the bond to be exacted is to pay same. See Section 59.13(3), F.S.1941, F.S.A.” See also Larson v. Higginbotham

Atlas Properties, Inc. v. Didich

205 So. 2d 28, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4193

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 1967 | Docket: 64503387

Published

interest and costs, citing rule 5.7 F.A.R., and § 59.13 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The appellant argues that it

Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Proudfoot

116 So. 2d 245

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 1959 | Docket: 60193790

Published

review a good and sufficient bond, as provided in § 59.13 of chapter 59, conditioned to pay the amount of

Griffith v. Vecchiarelli

97 So. 2d 691

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 1957 | Docket: 64489696

Published

review a good and sufficient bond, as provided in § 59.13 of chapter 59, conditioned to pay the amount of

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Knost

65 So. 2d 740, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1328

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 1953 | Docket: 64484435

Published

supersedeas filed in this Court was authorized by F.S. § 59.13(9), F.S.A. Petitioner represented that a petition

Kennedy v. Practical Home Builders

42 So. 2d 278, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 994

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 27, 1949 | Docket: 3270897

Published

secured by supersedeas bond and allowed under Section 59.13, F.S.A., so order of affirmance was erroneous