FRANK FLOYD CAVANAUGH, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Mills Elec. Contractors & Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Marthens, 417 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …9.130(a)(3). Formerly, the rule permitted review by appeal of specified non-final orders of lower tribunals. The term “lower tribunals” was interpreted to include hearings conducted before a deputy commissioner. Fidelity & Casualty Company v. Scott, 386 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Since the aforementioned amendment to Rule 9.030(b)(1)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, limits the applicability of Rule 9.130 to orders of circuit courts, this court is without jurisdiction to review by appeal non-fina…
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Sloan, 410 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …strued as not permitting review of orders which address the issue of insurance coverage without determining liability. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Morris, 370 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Although Fidelity Casualty Co. v. Scott, 386 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), permitted interlocutory appeal of a work [*550] ers’ compensation order on the issue of insurance coverage, we would now conclude that Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) does not authorize review of such an order by appeal.2 Accordingly,…
• Hines Elec. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McCLURE, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
  …ation appeals there is quite often more than one final order. Id. At one time, Rule 9.130 had been interpreted to allow for interlocutory appeals from some nonfinal orders in workers’ compensation cases. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Scott, 386 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Upon amendment of rule 9.030(b)(1)(B) dealing with jurisdiction of district courts of appeal, limiting the applicability of rule 9.130 to orders of the circuit courts, it was determined that interlocutory appeals were no longer…

Authorities Cited

• Suggs v. State, 358 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
• THE Florida BAR v. Lewis, 358 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)