ARTHUR F. SHAW, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID A. HILL AND NORTH SIDE DEVELOPMENT 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 appellate court dismissed an appeal because it was taken from an interlocutory order, not a final judgment, and was filed before the final order was even entered.
The appeal was dismissed because it was taken from an interlocutory order and was filed before the final order of dismissal was entered.
“The original order of dismissal from which the plaintiff takes his appeal is an interlocutory order in which the plaintiff is allowed 30 days to plead further.”
Establishes that the order being appealed was not a final judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to appeal an order of dismissal from the Circuit Court. The notice of appeal was filed on July 8, 1959, purportedly to review an …
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 Jurisdictional Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee has filed a motion to quash the appeal on the grounds that it is frivolous and taken only for the purpose of delay.
This court has examined the record in this case and finds a jurisdictional defect in the appeal which necessitates the court sua sponte to dismiss the appeal. The notice of appeal states that it is to review the order of dismissal of the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Charlotte County, Florida, made and filed on June 9, 1959. The certificate of the Clerk of the lower court shows the notice of appeal was filed on the 8th day of July, 1959. The appeal purports to be an appeal from a final judgment. The original order of dismissal from which the plaintiff takes his appeal is an interlocutory order in which the plaintiff is allowed 30 days to plead further. The final order of dismissal was entered on the 10th of July, 1959, 2 days after the appeal was filed in this case.
It is, therefore, the order of the court that the appeal in this case be dismissed.
ALLEN, Chief Judge, KANNER, J., and KELLY, CLIFTON, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hancock v. Wilford J. Piper and Alida Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1966)…he fails to amend the order it becomes a final judgment, but if he timely files an amended bill of complaint the original order of dismissal amounts merely to an interlocutory ruling. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Shaw v. Hill, 114 So. 2d 721, took the view that such an order as here under review is interlocutory only, and in disposing of the matter said: “ * * * The appeal purports to be an appeal from a final judgment. The original order of dismissal from which the plaintiff takes his…
-
Bumby & Stimpson, Inc. v. Peninsula Utils. Corp., 179 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…al, it moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction of this court to review the order appealed. A notice of appeal filed prior to rendition of a final judgment or decree cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court. Shaw v. Hill, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 721; Tom v. State ex rel. Tom, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 226. Where an appeal is taken in violation of the rules so that it is not legally sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the subject matter upon the court, the appearance of the appellee cannot of it…
-
Wash. Sec. Co. v. Tracy's Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., 166 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…tanding the fact that the initial order of dismissal was “with leave to amend.” 3 Judge Pearson’s dissent stated, among other things, that the point had been determined contrarily by the Second District Court of Appeal in Shaw v. Hill, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 721. The Womack decision, supra, would appear to have projected a vexful conflict had it not been for the import of later decisions of the same court in Shotkin v. Deehl, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 538, also a law action, and Mitchell v. Italian-American…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence