JOHN TAGGART, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY MORGAN AND PRIMA CAPITAL GROWTH FUND, LLC, 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 appellate court dismissed the appeal because the trial court's denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable non-final order.
The plaintiff, Taggart, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment. The defendants argued the appeal should be dismissed as …
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 Non-Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
John Taggart (“Taggart”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff below, Taggart, and defendants, Gary Morgan (“Morgan”) and Pri-ma Capital Growth Fund (“Prima Capital”), filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied both motions without prejudice. Taggart argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion should be reversed because Morgan and Prima Capital failed to file affidavits in opposition to his summary judgment motion. Morgan and Prima Capital assert that this appeal should be dismissed because it is taken from an unappealable non-final order. The rules of appellate procedure do not permit interlocutory appeals of non-final orders denying motions for summary judgment. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3). Taggart fails to explain how any exception applies in the instant case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Mathews v. Urezzio, 788 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Vermette v. Ludwig, 707 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Aetna Cas. & Sur. v. Meyer, 385 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Pozos, 242 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ee, e.g., Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850, 851 n. 2 (Fla. 1992) ; State, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Garcia, 99 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ; Castillo v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 57 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ; Taggart v. Morgan, 943 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). However, Article V, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution authorizes district courts of appeal to review interlocutory orders of the circuit court "to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court." The Florida Sup…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Env't Prot. v. Garcia, 99 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…jurisdiction. See Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Perez, 988 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that denial of County’s motion for summary judgment was a non-appealable non-final order and did not meet criteria for review via certio-rari); Taggart v. Morgan, 943 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (stating rules of appellate procedure do not permit interlocutory appeals of non-final orders denying motions for summary judgment); Harte v. Palm Beach Biltmore Condo. Ass’n, 436 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (holding that…
-
Castillo v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 57 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…diction. With regard to the order denying summary judgment, interlocutory appeals of non-final orders denying motions for summary judgment are not permitted under the rules of appellate procedure. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3); Taggart v. Morgan, 943 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Additionally, with regard to the order granting summary judgment, the order appealed “is merely authorization for a final judgment. It does not constitute a final judgment, nor is it an order from which an interlocutory appeal…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Detective Jerome Vermette v. Ludwig, 707 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. & Morton Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Meyer, 385 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Dendy v. Jenne, 788 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Boyd L. Mathews and Kelly Mathews v. Lea M. Urezzio, 788 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)