BERNARD BISHOP, DAN WORSHAM AND RONALD FORBELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
MELVIN KELLY, SHERIFF OF HERNANDO COUNTY, AND WILLIAM F. EDWARDS, HERNANDO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, APPELLEES
BERNARD BISHOP, DAN WORSHAM AND RONALD FORBELL, APPELLANTS,
MELVIN KELLY, SHERIFF OF HERNANDO COUNTY, AND WILLIAM F. EDWARDS, HERNANDO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, APPELLEES
404 So. 2d 1149
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1981)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
An order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is a non-final order. As such, it is not appealable prior to final dismissal. Hancock v. Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1966); Petnuch v. Smith, 395 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Accordingly, this appeal is sua sponte
DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Potts v. Potts, 615 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ed complaint that would state a cause of action. The judicial labor below is not yet terminated, leaving this court without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Hunter v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., 449 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bishop v. Kelly, 404 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). However, based on Mitchell v. Combank/Winter Park, 429 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), appellant should be able to state a cause of action. The court there observed that in such situations: [*697] [C]hildren are third party do…
-
Morgan v. Lugene Blancher, 489 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ice cannot be a final order if counts two and three remain pending. Moudy v. Southland Distributing Co., 452 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). An order of dismissal with leave to amend is not appealable because it is a nonfinal order. Bishop v. Kelly, 404 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). If the order dismissing counts two and three with leave to amend is a nonfinal order, these counts necessarily remain pending. Although the court in Blacker v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cer…
-
Milford Levine v. Forrest, 578 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…-final, nonappealable order with respect to that defendant. See Hancock v. Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1966); Morgan v. Blancher, 489 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Braddon v. Doran Jason Co., 453 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bishop v. Kelly, 404 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Plaintiff next contends that the order dismissing count one with prejudice as to defendants Austin and Forrest constitutes a partial final judgment within the meaning of Rule 9.110(k), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hancock v. Wilford J. Piper and Alida Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1966)
- Petnuch v. Kevin Charles Smith (a minor) and George Charles Smith, 395 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)