OLIN'S, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AVIS RENTAL CAR SYSTEM OF FLORIDA, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 denied a motion to change an interlocutory appeal to a final decree appeal, holding that the lower court's decree, which retained jurisdiction for further proceedings, was indeed interlocutory.
The decree was interlocutory because it reserved jurisdiction for further proceedings, indicating that judicial labor remained to be done on unsettled questions.
“It is further considered, ordered and decreed that the court retains jurisdiction to conduct such further proceedings in this action as are just, including, among other things, a determination and adjudication of the issues raised by paragraphs 6 and 7 of plaintiff's complaint.”
This quote establishes the specific language in the lower court's decree that led the appellate court to find it interlocutory.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed an appeal, initially designating it as interlocutory, from a declaratory decree. The decree explicitly reserved jurisdiction for furth…
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 Interlocutory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant moved this court for an order to change its appeal, which it had designated as interlocutory, to an appeal from a final decree.
The decree involved, which was rendered in a suit for declaratory decree, contained a reservation of jurisdiction for further proceedings as follows:
“It is further considered, ordered and decreed that the court retains jurisdiction to conduct such further proceedings in this action as are just, including, among other things, a determination and adjudication of the issues raised by paragraphs 6 and 7 of plaintiff’s complaint.”
Appellant’s attorneys first considered the decree to be interlocutory rather than final, and filed the appeal on that basis. They now are in doubt as to whether the decree was interlocutory or final. In the argument, counsel for appellee opposed the motion and contended that the decree was interlocutory, and that the present appeal is the proper one and should not be changed to a “final decree” appeal.
*826Appellee’s contention on that point is correct. The reservation of jurisdiction contained in the decree, contemplating the further exercise of judicial labor in regard to questions remaining unsettled in the case, makes it interlocutory. See Hodges v. Logan, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 885.
Appellant’s motion is denied.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…urt has disposed of the entire controversy in [*319] question.8,9 See Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Pan American Airways, 126 Fla. 736, 171 So. 808 (1937); Saul v. Basse, 399 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Olin’s, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car Sys., 100 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Just because this is the theoretical case, it is therefore improper to render an order in the form of an ordinary final money judgment, while contradietedly and simultaneously leaving an issue for future adjudication. Fontaineble…
-
Olin's Inc. v. AVIS Rental CAR Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 105 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…rt of Dade County for declaratory decree against the appellant Olin’s, Inc. The chancellor granted a summary final decree in favor of the plaintiff. Because certain questions were left undetermined by the decree, we ruled it interlocutory (Fla.App., 100 So. 2d 825). On the appeal taken to this court we reversed the summary decree (102 So. 2d 159), holding that the cause was not one for declaratory decree. The Supreme Court of Florida quashed our opinion and judgment (104 So. 2d 508, 511), saying: “The whole…
-
Saul v. Basse, 399 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…the case was also a final adjudication of appellants’ liability for a fee for appellees’ attorney. Generally, if a court reserves jurisdiction to make further adjudications, the judgment is only interlocutory. Olin’s, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System, 100 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). We hold that the final judgment entered in 1979 was only interlocutory insofar as it concerned attorneys’ fees. The question remains whether the interlocutory order regarding fees was ap-pealable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hodges v. Logan, 82 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1955)