NEREE
v.
DE LA FUENTE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2018-07-11
No. 18-0107
254 So. 3d 575 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2018)

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.

Holding

A lawsuit is barred by res judicata when the issues alleged were resolved adversely to the party in a prior final judgment.

Headnotes

[1] The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent lawsuit when the issues alleged in that lawsuit were previously resolved adversely to the party by a final judgment in an e…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Appellant Dufirstson Neree filed a lawsuit (case no. 16-03245-CA) involving issues that had previously been litigated in another case (case no. 16-000…

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.

Topics
Invalid Exercise Of Delegated Legislative Authority Injury In Fact Final Judgment Administrative Law

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Invalid Exercise Of Delegated Legislative Authority cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, Dufirstson Neree, appeals a January 11, 2018 trial court order captioned as an “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”1 As is clear from the record on appeal, including the transcript from the January 11th hearing resulting in the entry of the order, the trial court correctly determined that appellant’s lawsuit (lower tribunal case no. 16-03245-CA) was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Indeed, the issues alleged by appellant in case no. 16-03245-CA were resolved adverse to appellant by virtue of the final judgment entered in case no. 16-00013-CA27.

Affirmed.

Footnotes
1 Notwithstanding the caption of the order suggesting it is non-final, the content of the order (i.e., closing the case, denying all pending motions, referencing the res judicata effect of lower tribunal case no. 16-00013-CA27) makes clear that the appealed order has ended all judicial labor in the case. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade Cty., 469 So. 2d 813, 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We therefore have jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw