ARTHUR J. LONGO AND MARY FRANCES LONGO, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DR. C. C. COLLINS, SR., 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.
This appeal challenges a trial court's order striking portions of a complaint in a breach of contract, negligence, and fraud action. The appellate court dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that appellate review of such orders in law actions is limited to questions of venue and jurisdiction over the person.
An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in law actions except those relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person. The proper remedy for review of other interlocutory orders is by appeal following entry of final judgment, absent a clear showing that such appeal would not provide full, adequate, and complete relief.
“Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., provides for the review of interlocutory orders entered in common law actions only when such orders relate to venue or jurisdiction over the person.”
Establishes the jurisdictional limitation on interlocutory appeals in law actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Longo brought a law action against Dr. C. C. Collins, Sr. for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. The trial court granted defendant'…
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 Jurisdiction Over The Person cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, as plaintiffs, brought an action at law against the defendant-appellee for breach of contract, negligence and fraud. They now seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this court by interlocutory *2appeal to review an order of the trial court granting defendant’s motion to strike certain portions of their complaint. The propriety of the use of this vehicle to obtain appellate review of an interlocutory order in a law action is our immediate concern.
Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., provides for the review of interlocutory orders entered in common law actions only when such orders relate to venue or jurisdiction over the person. The jurisdiction of an appellate court cannot be otherwise invoked thereunder in actions at law.1
F.S. § 59.45, F.S.A., urged by appellants on oral argument, provides little solace. It permits an appeal which has been improvidently taken to be regarded as a petition for certiorari “ * * * where the remedy might have been more properly sought by certiorari * * In our recent decision in Pullman Co. v. Fleishel2 we denied a petition for writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that an adequate remedy was available by appeal from and after the entry of final judgment. In the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Company3 we refused certiorari to review an interlocutory order at law for similar reasons. There, as in the Pullman Co. case, supra, we held that in the orderly processes for the administration of justice appellate courts should cautiously avoid intrusion and encroachment upon the jurisdiction of trial courts. It is not the function of an appellate court to inject itself into a trial or to direct the trial court in the conduct of a case before it. If a party be aggrieved by any interlocutory order, other than those encompassed by the rules he may seek a review thereof by appropriate assignment only upon appeal from the final judgment, except in those cases in which it can be clearly demonstrated that such will not afford a full, adequate and complete remedy. The reasons for denying certiorari in the above cited cases are the basic reasons why review of interlocutory orders in law actions is confined solely to questions of venue and jurisdiction over the person.
Having failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of this court to review the challenged order by interlocutory appeal, and absent a clear showing that there can be no full, adequate and complete relief by appeal from final judgment, this appeal must be and the same is hereby dismissed, but without prejudice to appellants’ right to seek a review by appeal upon the entry of final judgment if they be so advised.
CARROLL, DONALD, J., and WILLIS, BEN C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Girten v. Bouvier, 155 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…It is thus seen that power to review an intermediate order does not comprehend errors by the trial court in the making of rulings on the pleadings (see also Welsh v. Tropical Roofing Co., Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 894; Longo v. Collins, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 1), nor as to the law applicable to the facts; neither will an appellate court review alleged errors in admitting or rejecting evidence or in making of rulings [*749] on other matters of procedure, even though the error might be reversible on appeal.…1 / 2
-
Morse v. Hendry Corp., 177 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…dismissing the complaint is a partial summary judgment and therefore interlocutory, and not appealable within the meaning of Florida Statutes, § 59.2(1), F.S.A. and Florida Appellate Rule 3.2, subd. b, 31 F.S.A.” In Longo v. Collins, Fla.App. 1958, 106 So. 2d 1, the First District Court of Appeal held that a party aggrieved by interlocutory order other than those encompassed by rules, could seek relief therefrom only by appropriate assignment upon appeal from final judgment, except if it could be clearly d…
-
Welsh v. Tropical Roofing Co., 127 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…ow, petitioner here, after final judgment in this case, can appeal from the court’s order striking allegations for punitive damages as to the defendant corporation, Tropical Roofing Company, if it is deemed advisable. Longo v. Collins, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 1. Petition for certiorari denied. SHANNON, J., and GERALD, LYNN, Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Bd. OF Comm'rs OF State Insts. v. The Tallahassee Bank & Tr. Co. cum testamento annexo, 101 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)