See, e.g., Cassell v. Erquiaga, 28 So.3d 143, 143-44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Federal case law construing the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, while not voluminous, also seems clear. A notice of appeal filed in a federal appellate court following the filing of a bankruptcy petition is ineffective to confer jurisdiction on the court. See Parker v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir.1995) (“[Appellant] filed his Notice of Appeal ... six days after the filing of his petition in bankruptcy gave rise to the automatic stay. Because any act taken in violation of the automatic stay is void, the Notice of Appeal is ineffective to the extent it purports to confer jurisdiction on this Court .... ” (citation omitted)); Crowe Grp., Inc. v. Garner, 691 So.2d 1089, 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>). The Eighth Circuit has ruled as follows with
holding that the lower court should have entered a final order on custody holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay holding that the automatic stay applies to the debt ors appeal of an order entered in action brought against the debtor in the lower court holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor  counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay holding that the protections of the automatic stay apply only to actions against the debtor