STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALYSE COHEN PARIS AND MARK PARIS, HUSBAND AND WIFE AND MICHAEL COHEN PARIS, ETHAN LOUIS PARIS, REUBEN ELAN PARIS, AND SAMUEL ASHER PARIS, MINOR CHILDREN OF ALSYE COHEN PARIS AND MARK PARIS, AND N.S. MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CORP., 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 Florida Department of Transportation appealed a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity in a negligence case arising from an allegedly defective guardrail on the Florida Turnpike. The Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that orders denying sovereign immunity motions in state negligence cases are not appealable interlocutory orders under Florida appellate rules.
An order denying a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity in an ordinary negligence case against a state agency is not an appealable non-final order under rule 9.130. Tucker v. Resha, which allowed interlocutory review of qualified immunity orders in federal civil rights actions, does not extend to state negligence claims involving state sovereign immunity.
[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity in an ordinary negligence case against a state agency is not subject to interlocutory review under Florid…
[2] Interlocutory review of orders denying claims of immunity is generally limited to situations involving federal civil rights actions and federal immunity law, not ordinary…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 thrust of rule 9.130 is to restrict the number of appealable nonfinal orders. The theory underlying the more restrictive rule is that appellate review of nonfinal judgments serves to waste court resources and needlessly delays final judgment.”
Establishes the foundational policy behind Florida's restrictive interlocutory appeal rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees sought to recover damages from DOT for injuries resulting from an accident involving an allegedly defective guardrail on the Florida Turnpik…
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 Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cases and more on FLexlaw
[*382] KLEIN, Judge.
The Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is appealing a non-final order denying its motion dismiss, grounded on sovereign immunity, in a case in which appellees are seeking to recover against DOT as a result of an accident involving an allegedly defective guardrail on the Florida Turnpike.
As its jurisdictional basis for taking this appeal, DOT cites Tucker v. Resha, 648 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1994), in which our supreme court decided that an order denying a motion for summary judgment, based on a public official’s claim of qualified immunity as a defense in a federal civil rights action, should be subject to interlocutory review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Although the fifth district recently allowed an appeal from the type of order found in our case, in Department of Transportation v. Wallis, 659 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), Judge Sharp dissented, and correctly, we think, distinguished the order in Tucker from the type of order involved in Wallis and this case. Tucker involved a federal cause of action and federal immunity law, while Wallis and this case are ordinary negligence cases against a state agency which may be immune under state law.
Judge Sharp succinctly explained why the majority’s conclusion in Wallis does not follow from Tucker, and we adopt her reasoning as our own. As she pointed out, the supreme court recognized in Tucker that its holding would require a change in rule 9.130. Although directing rule changes is within the power of the Florida Supreme Court, it is not within ours, and Wallis would also require a rule change.
The only thing we can add to Judge Sharp’s discussion is what our supreme court said, in comparing rule 9.130 to its predecessor:
The thrust of rule 9.130 is to restrict the number of appealable nonfinal orders. The theory underlying the more restrictive rule is that appellate review of nonfinal judgments serves to waste court resources and needlessly delays final judgment.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns, 443 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla.1984).
We sua sponte dismiss the appeal, but certify conflict with Wallis. We also note that the supreme court has granted review in a decision consistent with Judge Sharp’s dissent, Department of Education v. Roe, 656 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA May 12, 1995), rev. granted, 663 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1995).
GUNTHER, C.J., and PARIENTE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hastings v. Demming, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ment is contrary to the basic theory of rule 9.130 which, as will be fully explained later, “is to restrict the number of appealable nonfinal orders.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns, 443 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla.1984). Accord Department of Transp. v. Pans, 665 So. 2d 381, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (relying on Bruns’ restrictive theory of the rale to support dismissal of nonfinal appeal). We likewise certify conflict with City of Lake Mary v. Franklin, 668 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In that case, the Fifth Distri…
-
Marina BAY Hotel & Club, Inc. v. Gerry McCALLUM, 733 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ida Supreme Court is to narrowly interpret rule 9.130, which allows non-final appeals, so as to “restrict the number of appealable non-final orders.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns, 443 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla.1984); State, Department of Transp. v. Paris, 665 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Hastings v. Demming, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), approved by, 694 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1997). We therefore construe rule 9.130(a)(c)(3)(ii) to allow appeals only of orders which more directly determine the immediate right to…
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Alyse Cohen Paris, 682 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1996)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in Department of Transportation v. Paris, 665 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), which certified conflict with the opinion in Department of Transportation v. Wallis, 659 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently disapproved Wallis in Department of Educ…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tucker v. Resha, 648 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1994)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns, 443 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1984)
- Dep't OF Transp. v. Wallis, 659 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Dep't OF Educ. v. ROE, 656 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)