GINO PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2009-07-15
No. 3D09-1295
Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
13 So. 3d 1105 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2009) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Dickey, 928 So.2d 1193 (Fla.2006).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …ssing the Club, the last remaining defendant. However, because the trial court’s order only granted the motion to dismiss and did not enter judgment for or against a party, Golant’s appeal was of a non-appealable, non-final order. See Rust v. Brown, 13 So. 3d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Dobrick v. Discovery Cruises, Inc., 581 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We issued a ‘Dobrick’ order granting Golant thirty days to obtain a final judgment, which Golant obtained, thus making the appeal ripe for review…
  • Tarik, Inc. v. NNN Acquisitions, Inc., 17 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
    …). NNN moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the trial court’s order did not determine Tar-ik’s right to “immediate possession.” An order granting a motion for summary judgment is a non-appealable order. Rust v. Brown, 13 So. 3d 1105, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In real property cases, the trial court’s order on a party’s summary judgment motion does not determine the “immediate right to possession” even though it may resolve the underlying legal issues. Marina Bay Hotel & Club, I…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw