SERGEANT MICHAEL TINDEL, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT KESSLER AND SUSAN KESSLER, 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a trial court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified or absolute immunity in a federal civil rights case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court's order did not explicitly determine as a matter of law that the immunity defense was unavailable, which is required for appellate review of such denials.
A non-final order denying summary judgment on a qualified or absolute immunity defense in a civil rights claim is only appealable if the trial court order specifically determines that, as a matter of law, such defenses are not available to the defendants. Because the trial court's order here did not make such a determination, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] An order denying a motion for summary judgment based on absolute or qualified immunity in a federal civil rights claim is not appealable unless the trial court determines…
[2] Appellate jurisdiction over non-final orders denying immunity defenses in federal civil rights claims is conditioned on the trial court's explicit determination that the…
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“Non-final orders denying summary judgment on a claim of workers' compensation immunity are not appealable unless the trial court order specifically states that, as a matter of law, such a defense is not available to a party.”
Establishes the foundational rule from Hastings that appellate jurisdiction requires explicit determination that immunity is unavailable as a matter of law, not merely a denial of summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSergeant Michael Tindel and other officers filed an appeal challenging a trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment in a civil rights c…
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 Civil Rights Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
The parties to this appeal assert that this court has jurisdiction of the non-final order entered in this case, as one determining, as a matter of law, that a party is not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity in a civil rights claim arising under federal law. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii); Tucker v. Resha, 648 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1994). The trial court, however, did not determine, as a matter of law, that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was improper. It simply denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
In Hastings v. Demming, 694 So. 2d 718, 720 (Fla.1997), the supreme court held:
Non-final orders denying summary judgment on a claim of workers’ compensation immunity are not appealable unless the trial court order specifically states that, as a matter of law, such a defense is not available to a party. In those limited cases, the party is precluded from having a jury decide whether a plaintiffs remedy is limited to workers’ compensation benefits and, therefore, an appeal is proper. Otherwise, the denial of the summary judgment may be based on a factual dispute and the party is still likely able to present an immunity defense to the jury. In those cases, the new rule makes clear that the district courts have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the nonfinal order. The rule of review pertaining to the denial of the defense of a qualified or absolute immunity in a civil rights claim arising under federal law, like the rule pertaining to claims of immunity in a workers’ compensation case, requires, as a condition of appellate review, an order which determines that the defendants, as a matter of law, cannot raise the immunity defense. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii); see also Vermette v. Ludwig, 707 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), rev. denied, 717 So. 2d 534 (Fla.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 984, 119 S.Ct. 449, 142 L.Ed.2d 403 (1998). Otherwise, as the supreme court noted in Hastings, the denial of the motion may be based on a factual dispute in which the defendants may still likely be able to present an immunity defense to the jury.
In order for the trial court to issue a renewable order denying the officers’ their immunity defenses, the order must state that these defenses, as a matter of law, are not available.
The appeal is dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
COBB and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Florida Highway Patrol v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, 238 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…pellate court must determine that the lower court denied immunity from the face of the order alone, without looking at the record to determine whether the lower court correctly found that disputed issues of material fact actually existed). Kessler, 772 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (applying the Hastings rule to dismiss an appeal of an order denying qualified immunity). In short, a defendant in Florida asserting that the trial court erroneously denied immunity may not appeal unless the order explicitly stat…
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Pozos, 242 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…nstruing the workers' compensation immunity provision, courts have held that the order is appealable only if it expressly determines that, as a matter of law, the party is not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. See, e.g., Tindel v. Kessler, 772 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ; Vermette v. Ludwig, 707 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The dissent opines, at *33: "I recognize that unless it can be determined as a matter of law that either the County had no duty or it is immune from suit, this Court lacks…
-
Tanya Taival, D.O. v. Lacey Barrett, 204 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…n of law. We disagree. As we have previously explained, an order that simply denies the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but does not determine, as a matter of law, that summary judgment is improper, is not appealable. See Tindel v. Kessler, 772 So. 2d 599, 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see also Gionis v. Headwest, Inc., 799 So. 2d 416, 417-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (finding order denying summary judgment not appealable as non-final order where the trial court’s ruling is based upon disputed issues of fact, n…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Hastings v. Demming, 694 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1997)
- Detective Jerome Vermette v. Ludwig, 707 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Pitsonbarger v. Gramley, 525 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1998)
- Ludwig v. Vermette, 525 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1998)