CITY OF PANAMA CITY, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDINA, INC. AND COLUMBUS ROGERS, 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 court held that an order granting partial summary judgment on counts seeking injunctive relief is not an appealable nonfinal order under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) unless it actually grants or has the effect of granting an injunction.
The City of Panama City sought review of a nonfinal order granting partial summary judgment in favor of appellees on counts seeking injunctive and man…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Panama City seeks review of a nonfmal order granting in part Appel-lees’ motion for partial summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In response to our order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed, the City asserts that the order is reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B), which authorizes appeals of nonfinal orders that “grant ... injunctions.” The City concedes that the order on its face does not grant injunctive relief, but it argues that the order is reviewable under this rule because, by granting summary judgment in favor of Appel-lees on the counts in the complaint seeking injunctive and mandamus relief, the order necessarily has the effect of granting such relief against the City. We disagree.
Contrary to the City’s argument, the order does not grant injunctive or mandamus relief against the City, nor does the order have the practical effect of an injunction. The order does no more than grant a motion for partial summary judgment on the counts in Appellees’ complaint seeking injunctive and mandamus relief. The order does not enter judgment on those counts, nor does the order direct the City to take, or refrain from taking, any action. See Gleicher v. Claims Verification Inc., 908 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (explaining that an order that “does not yet enjoin anyone” and that does not have the “practical effect” of an injunction is not renewable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B)); Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. West Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., 993 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Because the order on appeal did no more than grant summary judgment, the order is not final.”). Accordingly, the order is not reviewable under rule 9.130(b)(3)(B) and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
DISMISSED.
DAVIS, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. Fla. Ass'n OF Wholesale Distribs., Inc., 198 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…a temporary injunction. First and foremost, nowhere within the order does the court- purport to enter an actual injunction; the order, does not even include the words “injunction” or “enjoin” within its language. Cf. City of Panama v. Andina, Inc., 63 So. 3d 908, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (dismissing appeal where the order merely granted a motion for partial summary judgment on claims for injunc-tive and mandamus relief and was not an injunction);, Pescod v. Wells Rd. Veterinary Med. Ctr., Inc., 748 So. 2d 10…
-
A.W. Baylor Plastering, Inc. v. Carlton Dunes Condo., 68 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See, e.g., City of Panama City v. Andina, Inc., 63 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Gleicher v. Claims Verification Inc., 908 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Jayme Doucette v. Stacie Richardson, 233 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
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
- Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., 993 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Kip A. Sterling v. State, 908 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Gleicher v. Claims Verification Inc., 908 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)