WILLIAM J. PAGE, JR. AND ALFRED CAMPBELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
GALE GLASS EZELL AND SHELDON EZELL, 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.
State employees appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, arguing the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction. The Florida appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that sovereign immunity does not implicate the court's personal jurisdiction and therefore appeals on this ground are not reviewable under the applicable rule.
A non-final order denying a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds is not appealable under the rule limiting review of non-final orders to those determining jurisdiction of the person, because sovereign immunity does not implicate personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
[1] An appeal from a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is not reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).
[2] The term "jurisdiction of the person" under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) refers to issues of service of process or the applicability of the long-…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the term "jurisdiction of the person," as used in the above rule, "refers to service of process or the applicability of the long arm statute to non-residents."”
Establishes the narrow definition of 'jurisdiction of the person' under the appellate rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam J. Page, Jr. and Alfred Campbell, state employees/officers, were sued for negligence. They moved to dismiss the complaint arguing they could n…
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 In Personam Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*583] PER CURIAM.
The defendants William J. Page and Alfred Campbell appeal from a non-final order entered below denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed against them. The relevant ground urged below for dismissal of the subject complaint was that the trial court lacked in personam jurisdiction over the defendants because, as state employees/officers, the defendants could not be held personally liable under the doctrine of sovereign immunity for the acts of negligence sued upon, as these acts were discretionary, not ministerial, in nature. Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So. 2d 658, 664-65 (Fla.1982). We conclude that we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), [adopted pursuant to Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.], and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) provides in relevant part: “Review of non-final orders of lower tribunals is limited to those which ... determine ... jurisdiction of the person.” It is settled that the term “jurisdiction of the person,” as used in the above rule, “refers to service of process or the applicability of the long arm statute to non-residents.” National Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass’n, 395 So. 2d 592, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), approved, 417 So. 2d 655, 656-57 (Fla.1982); see American Health Ass’n v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). A non-final order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground, as here, that the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not appealable under the above rule. State Road Dep’t v. Brill, 171 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (decided under predecessor rule, Fla. R.App.P. 4.2a, containing identical language).
Without dispute, the instant appeal does not involve service of process or long arm statute issues; the individual defendants were all properly served with process below and are all residents of the state of Florida. This being so, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). The ground urged for dismissal of the complaint below has nothing to do with the trial court’s in per-sonam jurisdiction over the individual defendants; it pertains solely to the personal liability of the defendants under the doctrine of sovereign immunity for the alleged negligent acts sued upon.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Miami Physical Therapy Assocs., Inc. v. Savage, 632 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…on. The order denying the motion to dismiss is neither a final order nor an appeal-able nonfinal order as provided in Fla. R.App.P. 9.130. DCA of Hialeah, Inc. v. Lago Grande One Condominium Ass’n, 659 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Page v. Ezell, 452 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Certiorari review generally does not lie to review the denial of a motion to dismiss. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987). Moreover, the mere expense and inconvenience of litigation does not const…
-
Sanford H. Cole, M.D. v. Posada, 555 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…)(C)(i), “jurisdiction of the person” has been interpreted as referring to whether the service of process was proper or whether the long-arm statute has been correctly applied. See Strauss v. Gorman, 471 So. 2d 1303 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Page v. Ezell, 452 So. 2d 582 (Fla.3d DCA 1984); National Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Association, Inc., 395 So. 2d 592 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), approved, 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla.1982); American Health Association, Inc. v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).…
-
Warren v. Se. Leisure Sys., Inc., 522 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…terlocutory review under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), an order must determine “jurisdiction of the person.” The term “jurisdiction of the person” refers to service of process or to the applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents. Page v. Ezell, 452 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); National Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass’n, 395 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), approved, 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla.1982); American Health Ass’n v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The order appealed is…
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
- Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1982)
- Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1982)
- Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 395 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Brill, 171 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Am. Health Ass'n, Inc. v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)