GERALD KING, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GARY ODLE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 affirmed summary judgment on liability in favor of plaintiff Odle against defendant King, and dismissed Odle's cross-appeal challenging the denial of his motion to amend the complaint to add punitive damages because the order was not appealable.
Summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiff was proper, and the trial court's denial of the motion to amend the complaint to add punitive damages was not appealable at that stage.
[1] An order denying a motion to amend a complaint to add a punitive damages claim is not an appealable non-final order and cannot be reviewed on cross-appeal unless timely b…
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 intelligencePlaintiff Gary Odle sued defendant Gerald King. The trial court granted summary judgment on liability in favor of Odle and denied Odle's motion to ame…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Iv) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from summary judgment on liability in favor of plaintiff, Gary Odie, against defendant, Gerald King. Although brought as a final appeal, we have jurisdiction to consider it as a non-final order determining liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). Accordingly we redesignate this as a non-final appeal. Based on the issues presented in the briefs, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
The plaintiff also filed a cross-appeal from the order of the trial court denying his motion to amend his complaint to add a punitive damages claim. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this cross-appeal because this order is not an appealable non-final order. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130; Webb Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. PDM Hydrostorage, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), cited in Gwen Fearing Real Estate, Inc. v. Wilson, 430 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Moreover, we cannot consider this under our certiorari jurisdiction because it was not brought in a timely fashion. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(f). Accordingly we dismiss the cross-appeal without prejudice to raising this issue at the time of any plenary appeal.
GUNTHER, C.J., and WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.D.S. Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski, 976 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…tion with an appealable non-final order. Chicago Title Ins. Agency v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citations omitted). Accord Roofcraft Int’l, Inc. v. Thomas, 677 So. 2d 39, 39-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); King v. Odle, 665 So. 2d 378, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); First Union Nat’l Bank v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 644 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Polo v. Polo, 643 So. 2d 55, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); George J. Karr, D.D.S. v. Sellers, 620 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 19…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Sarnoff, 776 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…onjunction with an appealable nonfinal order. Chicago Title Ins. Agency v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citations omitted). Accord Roofcraft Int’l v. Thomas, 677 So. 2d 39, 39-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); King v. Odle, 665 So. 2d 378, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); First Union Nat’l Bank v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 644 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Polo v. Polo, 643 So. 2d 55, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); George J. Aim; D.D.S. v. Sellers, 620 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 199…
-
Leedham v. State of Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Vill. Beach Mkt., Inc., 950 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…452, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (concluding that the willful and intentional refusal to follow the superi- or’s valid and reasonable work order was sufficient to warrant disqualification for benefits); Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Ap [*478] peals Comm’n, 665 So. 2d 378, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (stating that “where an employee intentionally violates company policy ... or ignores standards of behavior which the company is entitled to expect from employee ... that employee will be disqualified from receiving unemploy…
Authorities Cited
- Webb Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. PDM Hydrostorage, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Gwen Fearing Real Est., Inc. v. Wilson, 430 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)