filing period may be extended for good cause.” 457 So.2d at 1137. In Walker, the court explained this does not mean the period will be extended automatically or in every case. In most cases, the court will expect the time limits for filing to be complied with. However, when defendant will not suffer prejudice or be deprived of adequate notice, the court may, in its sound discretion, allow the state to file an untimely notice of cross appeal. Id. The Walker court did not hold that a cross-appeal can be dispensed with altogether, only that an appeals court may allow late filing of a notice of cross-appeal for good cause. The only other case the majority opinion cites in this connection affords, if possible, less support for blatantly disregarding t 44 So.2d 580, 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (<HOLDING>). The Cooperative proved it suffered actual
recognizing that court may intervene in arbitration proceeding by invoking equitable powers recognizing that administrative agencies routinely apply equitable estoppel in administrative hearings and that permitting them to do so is consistent with administrative remedy exhaustion requirements and separation of powers holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief recognizing that the promised administrative remedy may be too little or too late in that case equitable power of a circuit court must intervene and citing 3 k davis administrative law treatise 69 1958 recognizing that administrative agencies lack to power to consider or determine constitutional issues