In Bank United v. Klug, the Ninth District reaffirmed the well-settled rule that the journalization of a nunc pro tunc order which merely "correct[s] minor typographical errors" does not extend the 30-day notice-of-appeal filing deadline provided for in Appellate Rule 4(A). Here, the order was entered on January 6, a nunc pro tunc order was entered on January 22, and the notice of appeal was filed on February 19--28 days after the nunc pro tunc order, but 44 days after the original order. The appeal thus was untimely, and was dismissed.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Is a member of the public entitled to make a claim under a contractor-licensing bond posted with the city?
Yes, says the Eighth District, in Koster v. Chowdhury. The court's decision--which is correct, in my view--is arguably a reversal of its 1996 unpublished holding in Soltesz v. Dicamillo.