COLUMBUS BRIDGES, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT LEE KITCHEN, ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS; ROBERT LEE KITCHEN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. COLUMBUS BRIDGES, APPELLEE
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 vacated its dismissal of a cross-appeal, treating the cross-appellants' notice as an interlocutory appeal of an injunction order and directing procedural steps to consolidate it with the main appeal.
A cross-appeal is not the proper vehicle to review an order entered after final judgment, and such a notice must be treated as an interlocutory appeal of the underlying injunction order.
[1] A cross-appeal is not the proper vehicle to review an order entered after the entry of final judgment; such a notice should be treated as an interlocutory appeal of the u…
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 intelligenceCross-appellants inadvertently filed a motion to withdraw their notice of appeal in the wrong case number, leading to dismissal of their cross-appeal,…
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 Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The attorney for cross-appellants in appeal No. 83-365 previously filed a withdrawal of notice of appeal in 83-365 and this court thereupon dismissed the cross-appeal in 83-365. Cross-appellants have now filed a motion to correct order in which they state they inadvertently filed the motion to withdraw in 83-365 instead of in their interlocutory appeal which is Case No. 83-1741. Therefore, the order of this court of September 22, 1983 dismissing the cross-appeal is hereby vacated and the interlocutory appeal, Case No. 83-1741, is hereby dismissed.
It appearing that the order of which the cross-appellants are seeking review in Case No. 83-365 was entered after the final judgment in that case; therefore, a cross-appeal is not the proper vehicle to review such order.
Consequently, the notice of cross-appeal is treated as a notice of interlocutory appeal of the injunction order rendered March 8, 1983. The attorney for cross-appellants shall file a copy of the notice of cross-appeal with the clerk’s office of the trial court on or before ten days to be treated by the clerk as a notice of appeal of the March 8 order filed as of the day the notice of cross-appeal was originally filed (March 29,1983).
Upon payment of the filing fee, the clerk shall process the appeal and forward it to this court, which will then consolidate the new appeal with Case No. 83-365. Cross-appellants’ brief, already filed in 83-365, will be treated as their appellants’ brief in the new appeal, and the attorney for appellants in 83-365 shall have fifteen days after consolidation of the new appeal to file an answer brief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Enters., Inc. v. Foodtech Hialeah, Inc., 777 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…Palokonis v. EGR Enters. Inc., 652 So. 2d 482, 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also Kearney v. Ross, 743 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cole v. Dep’t. of Corrections, 726 So. 2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Magers v. Walker’s Cay Air Terminal, Inc., 451 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The appellant in this cause, however, has not provided us with any transcript or stipulation of statement of fact made pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(b)(4) reflecting what, if any, explanation as to good cause was proffered to…
-
Lemuel L. Cole v. Dep't OF Corr., 726 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…for lack of prosecution, which the trial court granted after a telephonic hearing. A trial court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See Magers v. Walker’s Cay Air Terminal, Inc., 451 So. 2d 867, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) provides that, “[a]ll actions in which it appears on the face of the record that no activity by filing of pleadings, order of court, or otherwise has occurred for a period of 1 year…
-
Sandini v. Fla. E. Coast Props. Inc., 454 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…lity to insulate itself from trial in this case, given the recited chronology, did not justify application of the one-year rule. We are aware of the line of cases, among them this court’s recent decision in Magers v. Walker’s Cay Air Terminal, Inc., 451 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), holding that dismissal for lack of prosecution inures to actions, not individual parties. These decisions are distinguishable from the instant case, however, because jurisdiction was not obtained over all of the parties. See Cro…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence