PEARL WHIGAM AND MILES WHIGAM, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
ORMAND ARTHUR BORNSTEIN, 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 Whigams appealed from an order denying their post-trial motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a personal injury case. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Florida law does not permit appeals from orders denying post-trial motions.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Florida law does not provide for appeals from orders denying post-trial motions; appeals lie only from final judgments or, in limited circumstances, from interlocutory orders under specific statutory provisions.
“appeals in cases at common law lie only from final judgments except in those instances where interlocutory appeals may be taken pursuant to Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules”
Establishes the general rule limiting jurisdiction to final judgments and specific interlocutory appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Whigams brought a personal injury action against Bornstein. After the jury returned a verdict against the Whigams, they filed post-trial motions f…
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 Post-Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants here seek review of the actions of the trial judge during the course of a personal injury action, which they contend prejudiced the verdict returned by the jury in this cause. The review is sought incident to an appeal from an order denying the appellants’ post trial motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
After oral argument before the court, and a review of the record on appeal, we must decline to consider the alleged errors raised by the appellants because of an apparent serious jurisdictional defect. The notice of appeal, filed on July 6, 1959, after certain introductory verbiage, states: “ * * * to review the Order, Judgement [sic] or Decree of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, denying their Post Trial Motions, for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto or for a new trial, bearing date the 5th day of May, 1959, * * * recorded * * * in Minute Book 409, page 462 * *
By statute (Fla.Stat. § 59.02, F.S.A.) appeals in cases at common law lie only from final judgments except in those instances where interlocutory appeals may be taken pursuant to Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. Appeals are permitted by Fla.Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., from orders granting new trials and from orders of non-suit (Fla.Stat. § 59.05, F.S.A.) but no provision has been made for an appeal from an order denying motion for new trial or other post trial motions. See Denton v. Cummins Diesel Engines of Florida, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 617; Wilkey v. Loudon, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 832; Mickler v. Smith, Fla.App.1958, 111 So.2d 457.
In view of the status of this appeal as reflected by the record, we have no alternative than to dismiss this appeal.
It is so ordered.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robustiano Puga & Medmold, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…fore us. In support of that motion, the appellee correctly contends that the order denying the post-trial motions which was specifically stated in the notice is both non-final and non-appealable. Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(a)(4); e.g., Whigam v. Bornstein, 118 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). It is incorrect, however, in its claim that the obvious inadvertence in the notice’s reference to the wrong order should result in its motion being granted. To the contrary, in accordance with the welcome policy that appellate li…
-
Warren v. Warren, 480 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…Fla.1967); Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Bay Area News, Inc. v. Poe, 364 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1979); Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981); Whigam v. Bornstein, 118 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960); Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4).…
Authorities Cited
- Mickler v. W. H. Smith and his wife, 111 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Freeman A. Wilkey v. Loudon, 102 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Tucker v. MacRosan, Inc., 101 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Denton v. Cummins Diesel Engines OF Fla., Inc., 101 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)