ELIZABETH J. DYES, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK W. DYES, SR., APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1984-08-22
No. AZ-17
BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
454 So. 2d 746 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1984) Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 Certiorari Jurisdiction Final Order Interlocutory Appeal

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
MILLS, Judge.

MILLS, Judge.

Appellant takes an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s grant of a motion for protective order and partial grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We dismiss the appeal on our own motion.

The protective order is neither a final order nor a nonfinal, interlocutory order reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. In addition, the protective order does not warrant the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction. City of Williston v. Roadlander, 425 So. 2d 1175, 1176 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

The order partially granting appel-lee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is likewise neither a final order nor a nonfi-nal, interlocutory order reviewable pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130. Sgrignuoili v. Barakat, 384 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

The appeal is dismissed.

BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Barrie Allan v. Hill, 502 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
    …e 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), because when the trial court denied Allan’s motion for a protective order, the court in effect ruled against Allan’s claims of immunity from service of process and improper service of process. We are aware that in Dyes v. Dyes, 454 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), our sister court held that the protective order is neither a final order nor a non-final, interlocutory order reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. A comparison between this case and Dyes is difficult…
  • Sampson v. Grp. 1 FL Holdings (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
    …ration of Appellants’ response filed June 13, 2022, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable non-final order. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Dyes v. Dyes, 454 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (dismissing an appeal of an order partially granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings as neither a final order nor a nonfinal, interlocutory order, citing Sgrignuloili v. Barakat, 384 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980)). B.L. T…
  • Morales v. Reservoir Media Mgmt., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw