Title: City of St. Petersburg, Florida v. SWFWMD
CITATION PAGE IMAGE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00051149/00001
 Material Information
Title: City of St. Petersburg, Florida v. SWFWMD
Alternate Title: City of St. Petersburg, Florida v. SWFWMD. Motion to Waive Services of Transcript of Record on Respondent
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: Box 2, Folder 4 ( ST. PETERSBURG, CITY OF V. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ), Item 26
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00051149
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

SECOND DISTRICT

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA,
a municipal corporation, )

Petitioner,
) MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
"-vs- ) FOR FILING BRIEF AND
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) TRANSCRIPT
DISTRICT, an administrative agency )
of the State of Florida, ) E A^. "7-/-

Respondent. )


The Petitioner, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, a
municipal corporation, by its undersigned attorney, moves this

Court for an Order extending the time within which to file the
Petitioner's brief and the transcript of the record and states:

1. The Order of the Southwest Florida Water Management
District was entered on August 4, 1976, thereby making the
Petitioner's brief and the transcript of the record due on

September 3, 1976.

2. Counsel for the Petitioner is faced with the
formidable task of preparing a complex legal argument based on

two hearings, with over 300 pages of testimony and encompassing

over 50 exhibits. Much of the testimony and many of the exhibits

are highly technical in nature, dealing with hydrological data

and terminology.

3. The crucial nature of the outcome of this appeal
also is a factor to be considered on these motions because the

drinking water of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, is at

issue.

4. The bulky nature of the transcript which includes

approximately 475 pages of exhibits alone, requires the presence
of the transcript before the Petitioner. Although certified

copies of the exhibits will be sent to this Court, they do not
lend themselves to accurate reproduction and use during the pre-

paration of Petitioner's brief.








5. The transcript of the final hearing was not made
available to the Petitioner until September 2, 1976, which is

one day before the Petitioner's deadline, despite Petitioner's

diligent efforts.

6. The transcript of the latest hearing before the
Administrative Procedures Committee is now being prepared, and

although the Petitioner does not plan to introduce it at this

time, it would be of immense help in presenting the Petitioner's

position before this Court.

7. In order to have adequate time to prepare the

Petitioner's brief in this case, thirty additional days are

needed.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner moves that the time for
filing Petitioner's brief in this case be extended to October 4,

1976.




I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion to

Extend Time For Filing Brief and Transcript has been furnished

to LESTER M. BLAINE, ESQUIRE, 606 East Madison, Tampa, FL,
Attorney for Respondent, by hand, this 3w day of September,

1976.





CARL R. LINN
City Attorney
214 Municipal Building
St. Petersburg, Florida
Attorney for Petitioner





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs