PHILLIP J. STRAZZULLA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS AGENT FOR PHILLIP J. STRAZZULLA, DOMINIC STRAZZULLA AND FRANK STRAZZULLA, A PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A STRAZZULLA BROTHERS COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BILL HINSON, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed an interlocutory appeal because it lacked jurisdiction, as the order appealed from was neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order concerning venue or jurisdiction over the person, which are the only types of interlocutory orders reviewable by the district court in actions at law.
No, the Florida District Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to hear such an interlocutory appeal because the Florida Constitution and Supreme Court rules limit review of interlocutory orders in actions at law to those concerning venue or jurisdiction over the person.
“The order appealed from is neither a final judgment at law nor is it an order at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person; hence this court has no jurisdiction of this cause and this appeal is hereby dismissed ex mero motu.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for dismissing the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court denied a motion to dismiss Count One of the complaint and granted a motion to dismiss Count Two, allowing the plaintiff 10 days to fur…
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
This interlocutory appeal is from an order of the trial court in an action at law, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:
“This cause coming before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss and on plaintiff’s motion to tax costs for failure of the defendants to appear at the taking of deposition, the matter having been duly considered, the Court will not at this time place any penalty against the defendants for failing to appear to take deposition in that there was a notice, though improper, mailed to opposing counsel, it is thereupon
“Ordered that the motion to dismiss is hereby denied as to count One of the complaint, and granted as to count Two of the complaint, and the plain*420tiff shall have 10 days in which to further plead.”
The Constitution of this State1 provides for appeals in actions at law from final judgments. The same section of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may provide for review by the district courts of appeal of interlocutory orders or decrees in matters reviewable by the district courts of appeal. The Supreme Court has provided for appeals from interlocutory orders at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person.2
The order appealed from is neither a final judgment at law nor is it an order at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person; hence this court has no jurisdiction of this cause and this appeal is hereby dismissed ex mero motu.
Appeal dismissed.
ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mapoles v. Wilson, 122 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…construed against an enlargement of the right of interlocutory appeal and is jurisdictional. For related cases see Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 188; Shaw v. Hill, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 721; Strazzulla v. Hinson, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 419; Jones v. Johnson, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 506. Although the question of this court’s jurisdiction was not raised by the parties, it is a matter of primary concern to which we must address ourselves sua sponte when any doubt exists. Finding that ju…
-
Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 218 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…Company (1931), 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561; Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc. (Fla.App.3d 1958), 99 So. 2d 719; Peaslee v. Michalski (Fla.App.2d 1964), 167 So. 2d 242; and Chastain v. Embry, id. See, also, Strazzulla et al. v. Hinson (Fla.App.2d 1959), 113 So. 2d 419; and Goldfarb v. Bronston et al. (1944), 154 Fla. 180, 17 So. 2d 300. . State ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Barrs (Fla.1924), 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668. . See Craft v. Clarembeaux, (Fla.App.2d 1964), 162 So. 2d 325.…