PIPER AIRCRAFT COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL WHYHAM, AS ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANE LESLIE WHYHAM, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 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 dismissed a non-final appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that an order reinstating a prior action based on forum non conveniens was not a final order appealable under Rule 1.540(b).
An order dismissing an action on forum non conveniens grounds is not a final order and therefore does not confer appellate jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 or Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).
[1] An order dismissing an action on forum non conveniens grounds is not a final order and therefore does not support appellate jurisdiction under Rule of Civil Procedure 1.5…
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 intelligencePiper Aircraft Company appealed an order that reinstated a prior action that had been dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds.…
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 Rule 1.540(b) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We dismiss this non-final appeal brought under the auspices of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 because we do not have appellate jurisdiction.
It is argued that the order in question which reinstated a prior action concerned venue. We disagree upon authority of Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Finally, it is argued that the appeal qualifies because it is an appeal from an order entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Although the order refers to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, it could not be such an appeal because that rule, by its language, operates to relieve a party from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding. Here the earlier order of dismissal upon the ground of forum non conveniens was not a “final order.” Atria v. Anton, 379 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Guth v. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation v. Aerospace Industries, Inc., 254 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Shotkin v. Deehl, 148 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Baker v. Colley, 104 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).
We respectfully decline to treat this appeal as a petition for common law certiorari because we are of the opinion that appel lant will have a full and adequate remedy via a plenary appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
LETTS, HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. Broward Cnty. Pers. Review Board/Agent Phil Rosenberg, 691 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…filed pursuant to 1.540(b) and, as a result, this court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5). See Hi-Tech Mktg. Group, Inc. v. Thiem, 659 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Piper Aircraft Co. v. Whyham, 455 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Nolan’s Towing & Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Further, the order is not a final order appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110. Accordingly, we dismiss the appea…
Authorities Cited
- Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Baker v. Colley, 104 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Guth v. Nell F. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Shotkin v. Deehl, 148 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corp. v. Aerospace Indus., Inc., 254 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Atria v. Anton, 379 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)