
    Bernardina ARNOLD, Appellant, v. DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Appellee.
    No. JJ-107.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Nov. 22, 1978.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1979.
    William H. Maness, Jacksonville, for appellant.
    Donald R. Hazouri, Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Because of confusion resulting from multiple litigation between the parties hereto this court, on September 1, 1978, entered a lengthy explanatory order relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of thirty days and providing that upon the revesting of jurisdiction in this court following such relinquishment to the trial court appellant would have fifteen days within which to file such further brief as she may desire and appellee would have fifteen days from date of receipt of a copy of any brief from appellant within which to respond thereto. Seventy-three days has now elapsed since the entry of said order, jurisdiction has revested in this court and no further briefs have been filed by the parties or either of them. We accordingly now consider this interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial judge dated January 31, 1978. Finding no abuse of discretion nor error of law the order here interlocuto-rily appealed is

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Since entry of the foregoing per curiam opinion appellant has filed a motion for rehearing calling to our attention that we erred in reciting in the foregoing opinion that “Seventy-three days has now elapsed since the entry of said order, jurisdiction has revested in this court and no further briefs have been filed by the parties or either of them.” Indeed we find that appellant did timely file the brief allowed by our order of September 1,1978. Accordingly, the above quoted words are hereby stricken from our foregoing per curiam opinion filed November 22, 1978.

We have now reconsidered our foregoing opinion in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing and the brief which appellant had timely filed, as aforesaid. We find nothing therein however, to change our pri- or finding of no abuse of discretion nor error of law on the part of the learned trial judge as to the order here interlocutorily appealed. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is therefore denied.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.  