WILLIAM PHILLIPS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LOUIS C. OSTRER, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted a motion to dismiss an appeal as untimely where plaintiffs sought to appeal a judgment in favor of defendant Nord more than six months after entry, even though the judgment was final and appealable as to that party alone.
A final judgment in favor of one defendant in a multi-party action is immediately appealable and the appeal period runs from entry of that judgment, unaffected by post-trial motions filed by co-defendants.
[1] A final judgment disposing of a cause as to a single defendant in a multi-party action is immediately appealable, and post-trial motions filed by co-defendants do not sus…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a jury trial, judgment was entered May 4, 1983 for defendant Nord but against other co-defendants. Co-defendants filed timely post-trial motions…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Post-Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal as to Appellee Nord
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
After a jury trial, judgment was entered on May 4,1983 for the defendant Nord, but against the other co-defendants in the action. While those defendants filed timely post-trial motions, neither the plaintiffs nor, of course, Nord himself challenged the judgment in his favor. On November 10, 1983, the plaintiffs filed this appeal from an October 15, 1983 order granting the co-defendants’ motions in part; the notice of appeal also stated that it sought review of the final judgment for Nord. He has now moved to dismiss the appeal as to him as untimely filed. We grant the motion.
There is no doubt that an order or judgment such as that entered for Nord on May 4, 1983, which disposes of a cause with respect to a single party is final and appeal-able even if the action remains pending against others. Let’s Help Florida v. DHS Films, Inc., 392 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Gries Investment Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Schneider v. Manheimer, 170 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). It follows that while the other parties’ post-trial motions clearly suspended the rendition and finality of the judgments against them under Fla.R. App.P. 9.020(g), they had no such effect upon the separate judgment for Nord which remained entirely undisturbed until the notice of appeal was filed more than six months after its entry.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996)…rties moved against, but rendition will not be postponed with respect to claims disposed of in the final order between parties who have no post-judgment motions pending between them with respect to any of those claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. Ostrer, 442 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Ideally, all post-judgment motions should be disposed of at the same time. See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson, 472 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1985). If that occurs, the final order is deemed rendered as to all claims when the order di…
-
del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…final, appealable judgment as to him. New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Petrik, 343 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(k); see Lakeview Townhomes Condominium Ass’n v. East Florida Corp., 454 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Phillips v. Ostrer, 442 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Let’s Help Florida v. DHS Films, Inc., 392 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Logan v. Flood, 346 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). It was therefore reviewable only by timely appeal within 30 days of the order itself. Del Castillo’s r…
-
Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000)…rties moved against, but rendition will not be postponed with respect to claims disposed of-in the final order between parties who have no post-judgment motions pending between them with respect to any of those claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. Ostrer, 442 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Ideally, all post-judgment motions should be disposed of at the same time. See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson, 472 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1985). If that occurs, the final order is deemed rendered as to all claims when the order di…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Let's Help Florida v. DHS Films, Inc., 392 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Hyman Schneider v. Manheimer, 170 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)