BRUCE BLOUNT ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
L. O. HANSEN, TAX ASSESSOR FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., 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 appellants sought to appeal an amended final decree concerning the construction of a statute related to property tax assessment. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the amended decree was interlocutory, not final, because it resolved only the statutory construction issue while expressly reserving other matters for further judicial determination.
The amended final decree is interlocutory, not final, because although it determined the statutory construction issue, it expressly reserved other matters for further judicial determination. A final decree must decide and dispose of the cause on its merits, leaving no questions open for judicial determination; here, judicial labor remained incomplete.
“a final decree as it concerns mode of review decides and disposes of the cause on its merits, leaving no questions open for judicial determination except the execution or enforcement of the decree if necessary”
Establishes the definition and test for what constitutes a final decree
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe chancellor originally entered a final decree adjudicating all parties' rights on the merits. The parties then appeared and stipulated orally that …
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
The appellants have brought their appeal to this court on the premise that the decree appealed from constitutes a final decree. This decree is termed an “Amended Final Decree.” Prior to its entry the chancellor had rendered a “Final Decree” by which is revealed that the rights of all the parties to the suit had been fully adjudicated on the merits and the controversy put to an end. Following the entry of this decree the parties then appeared before the chancellor and orally stipulated that the final decree thus entered should be set aside and that an amended final decree be entered. Thereupon, the court entered the amended final decree, being the decree from which this appeal is taken. The amended final decree specifically set aside and annulled the final decree in its entirety. By this decree the chancellor as a matter of law determined the construction of a statute involved and nothing else and expressly provided, “All other matters involved in this cause are reserved for further determination by the court.”
In general contemplation a final decree as it concerns mode of review decides and disposes of the cause on its merits, leaving no questions open for judicial determination except the execution or enforcement of the decree if necessary. Thus the distinguishing feature between an “Interlocutory Decree” and a “Final Decree” may be said that an interlocutory decree is one that is rendered in the middle of the cause and which does not finally determine or complete the cause; while a final decree is one that determines the rights of the parties and disposes of the cause on its merits, leaving nothing more to be done in the cause as distinguished from beyond the cause. The test, therefore, of a final decree is whether the judicial labor is at an end. Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 1943, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So.2d 175; Alderman v. Puritan Dairy, 1940, 145 Fla. 292, 199 So. 44, and Olin’s, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 825.
It is clearly apparent that the cause has not been decided and disposed of on its merits, leaving no question open for judicial determination. The order appealed from is interlocutory. Hence, the appeal is dismissed sua sponte by this court.
Dismissed.
ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Welch v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 590 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…er tribunals. The traditional test for a final order is whether the decree disposes of the cause on its merits leaving no questions open for judicial determination except for the execution or enforcement of the decree if necessary. Blount v. Hansen, 116 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). Rule 9.130 governs review of interlocutory orders: (1) orders concerning venue, (2) orders granting, continuing, modifying, denying or dissolving injunctions, or (3) orders determining jurisdiction of the person, right to immed…
-
Shannon v. Winnifred B. Shannon, 136 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…stitution, Art. V, Sec. 5(3), F.S.A. . See Footnote #1. . Florida Constitution, Art. V, See. 3. . Alford v. Leonard, 88 Fla. 532, 102 So. 885; Darden v. Lines, 2 Fla. 569. . Darden v. Lines, 2 Fla. 569. . Blount et al. v. Hansen, (Fla.App.1959) 116 So. 2d 250; First National Bank of Tampa v. Culbreath, 144 Fla. 526, 198 So. 199; Bancroft v. Allen, 138 Fla. 841, 190 So. 885. .Blount et al. v. Hansen, (Fla.App.1959) 116 So. 2d 250; Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497, 190 So. 796. . Thomas v. Cilbe, Inc., (…1 / 2
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Austin Carpet Serv., Inc., 382 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…icial labor, required or permitted to be done by the trial court, has been performed, other than such proceedings and orders as may be necessary to enforce the judgment. Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So. 2d 175 (1943); Blount v. Hansen, 116 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); Brown v. Mitchell, 151 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). While the cause remained to be tried as to personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the Martins, the issue was nevertheless final as to Florida Farm Bureau on its…
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
- Tomazin v. Gessner, 153 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1943)
- Mrs. J. D. Alderman v. Puritan Dairy, Inc., 145 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1940)
- Olin's, Inc. v. AVIS Rental CAR Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 100 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)