DAN MICHAEL MROTEK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
DAN MICHAEL MROTEK, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
674 So. 2d 788
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1996)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 (1993); Helms v. State, 659 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
GOSHORN, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., L.L.C., 51 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…es it expand in any way the class of orders immediately appeal-able.’ Bay & Gulf Laundry Equip. Co., Inc. v. Chateau Tower, Inc., 484 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Pellegrino v. Horwitz, 642 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).” Campbell v. Gordon, 674 So. 2d 788, 786 n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Where all parties remain in a case after an order is entered, the order cannot be said to dispose of the “entire case” as to any party for purposes of rule 9.110(k). See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99…
Authorities Cited
- Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1992)
- Helms v. State, 659 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Novak v. Snieda, 659 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)