HI-TECH MARKETING GROUP, INC., APPELLANT,

v.

EUGENE THIEM, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Bennett's Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortg. Corp., 870 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
  …e or proceeding. An order entered on a motion to vacate a non-final order, even where the motion mislabels the non-final order as final, is not reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5). See Hi-Tech Mktg. Group, Inc. v. Thiem, 659 So. 2d 479, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“Appellant seeks review of a non-final order denying its motion to vacate a non-final order striking its pleadings as a discovery violation sanction. This is not a ‘final order’ as contemplated by rule 1.540(b) Florida Rule…
• Powell v. State, 681 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
  …not orally pronounced. See Malone; Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Condition (13), requiring a good-faith effort to obtain either literacy skills or a high school diploma, is a special condition of probation, see Martin v. State, 659 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and must be struck because it was not orally pronounced.1 Nank. We affirm the revocation of probation and conditions (4) and (7)'. We strike condition (13), that portion of condition (12) requiring Powell to pay for testing, and…
• Doncarlos Garcia and Anne Garcia v. Navy Fed. Credit Union & 56 Cottonwood Court Land Tr., 224 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
  …mislabels the non-final order as final, is not reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5).” Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortg. Corp., 870 So. 2d 93, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Hi-Tech Mktg. Group, Inc. v. Thiem, 659 So. 2d 479, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“Appellant seeks review of a non-final order denying its motion to vacate a non-final order striking its pleadings as a discovery violation sanction. This is not a ‘final order’ as contemplated by rule 1.540(b) Florida Rule…

Authorities Cited

• Nolan's Towing & Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)