MYRLE F. BELIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF J.A. FILLINGIM A/K/A JESSE A. FILLINGIM A/K/A JESSE ANDREW FILLINGIM, DECEASED, PETITIONER,
v.
COLIN MITCHEL; THE APALACHICOLA LAND COMPANY; ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 granted certiorari and vacated the trial court's order because it lacked the necessary language of finality required for an appealable judgment, and the doctrine of laches did not apply to bar the petitioner's claims.
A summary judgment order that lacks the necessary language of finality is not a final judgment and cannot be appealed.
[1] A summary judgment order lacking the necessary language of finality does not constitute a final, appealable judgment.
[2] The doctrine of laches does not apply to bar suit when the delay does not arise from conduct by the defendant giving rise to the complaint.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment and alternatively relied on the doctrine of laches to deny petitioner's motion for en…
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 Doctrine Of Laches cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
The petition for certiorari is granted.
The trial court entered an order granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment; however, that order contained none of the necessary language of finality. See, e.g., Amelco Investment Corp. v. Bryant Electric Co., 487 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
No final judgment was ever entered. See, e.g., Nolan’s Towing and Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); BCH Mechanical Inc. v. McCoy, 584 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); and Arcangeli v. Albertson’s, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), cited in Dixon v. Allstate Insurance Co., 609 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
The doctrine of laches, on which the trial court relied alternatively, does not apply since this case does not involve delay in institution of a suit founded on conduct by the respondents “giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made.” See 35 Fla. Jur.2d “Limitations and Laches” § 88.
Therefore, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying petitioner’s motion for entry of a final appeal-able order. The “Order Denying Motion for Entry of a Final Appealable Order” is vacated and the trial court is directed to enter a final order. WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…of review in workers’ compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below, not whether it is possible to recite contradictory record evidence which supported the arguments rejected below.” Mercy Hosp. v. Holmes, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Given the E/C’s choice of an issue on appeal we must, once again, direct counsel’s attention to the leading case of Swcmigan v. Dobbs House and its admonition, “The point on appeal ... as stated by appellant, is self defeating u…
-
Wintz v. Goodwill & Summit Claims Mgmt., 898 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…of review in worker’s compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below, not whether it is possible to recite contradictory record evidence which supported the arguments rejected below.” Mercy Hosp. v. Holmes, 679 So. 2d 860, 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In her final order, the JCC cited eviden-tiary problems with both prongs of Claimant’s injury allegation. As to the specific incident prong, the JCC noted that neither the notice of injury nor the medical records contained…
-
Hale v. Shear Express, Inc., 946 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…review in workers’ compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below, not whether it is possible to recite contradictory record evidence which supported the arguments rejected below. See Mercy Hosp. v. Holmes, 679 So. 2d 860, 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“Once again we remind counsel of the basic premise that the standard of review in worker’s compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below, not whether it is possible to recite contr…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kramer v. State, 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Arcangeli v. Albertson's, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Dixon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 609 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Nolan's Towing & Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- BCH Mech., Inc. v. McCOY, 584 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Amelco Inv. Corp. v. Bryant Elec. Co., 487 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)