CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
J.D. BUFFKIN, JR., ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adverse Party cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for lack of standing. The appellants are not parties adversely affected by the trial court’s July 6, 2000, order. See Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1953) (stating that general rule on appeal is that party may appeal only from decision adverse to him in some respect); Stas v. Posada, 760 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Additionally, the May 2, 2000, order is a non-appeal-able, non-final order with respect to the appellants because the trial court reserved jurisdiction over “Counts 2 and 3 in the Amended Complaint.” See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1992) (reservations of jurisdiction over issues pertinent to the main adjudication affect the finality of the order).
Moreover, the March 30, 2000, order granting the appellees’ motion for summary judgment to quiet title is not an appealable order. The May 2, 2000, order entered final judgment quieting title; therefore, it subsumed the March 30, 2000, order. The dismissal with respect to the May 2, 2000, order is without prejudice to the appellants to file a new appeal upon the trial court’s entry of final judgment.
BOOTH, ALLEN, and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pool v. Bunger, 43 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…on. See Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1953) (noting and applying the general rule that a party may only appeal from a decision adverse to him or her in some respect); see also Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Buffkin, 768 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Remark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d at 540). Finally, the order is not an ap-pealable nonfinal order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) because, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the order does not grant or deny injunctive relief. Becau…
-
Chapman v. Nationsbank & Royal & Sunalliance Ins., 872 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…iculture Plus, Inc. v. Ash, 791 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reversing denial of motion for EMA, for the reason that appointment of an EMA is mandatory when there are conflicting medical opinions regarding causation); City of Inverness v. Volmar, 768 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing denial of motion for EMA, because the experts’ testimony was contradictory on a material element). [*393] The disagreement in the opinions of the physicians as to the degree of orthopedic impairment is clearly establis…
-
Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Vonceil Fisher and Traveine Howard on their behalf and on behalf, 800 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…on Computer Systs. Corp. Litigation, 614 F. 2d 11 (1st Cir.1980).1 This appeal is dismissed because Appellant lacks standing. Credit Indust. Co., Ltd. v. Remark Chem. Co., Inc., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1953); Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Buffkin, 768 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction and lack of standing); Stas v. Posada, 760 So. 2d 954, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (on mot. to dismiss) (dismissing appellants from appeal because they lacked ownership interest in property…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McGURN v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992)
- Rivas v. Prof'l Prot. & Investigations Agency, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Karin M. Stas v. Posada, 760 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., Inc., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1953)