WALKER
v.
STATE
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.
An order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is a nonfinal, nonappealable order, and certiorari review is ordinarily unavailable to challenge such orders absent a showing of irreparable harm.
[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is a nonfinal, nonappealable order.
[2] Certiorari is ordinarily unavailable to review an order denying a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The mere expense and inconvenience of litigation does not constitute harm sufficient to permit certiorari review, even if the order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”
Court's reasoning for why certiorari review is ordinarily unavailable for orders denying motions to dismiss.
Walker appealed a trial court order denying his motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action in a civil dispute with Tekerman in Miami-Dad…
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 Non-Final, Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is a nonfinal, nonappealable order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3); Gomez v. S & I Props., LLC, 220 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA
2017); Eagle Arts Acad., Inc. v. Tri-City Elec. Co., 211 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA
2017); Fineman v. Greenberg, 575 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Alternatively, appellant requests that we treat this as a petition for writ of certiorari. Certiorari is ordinarily unavailable to review an order denying a motion to dismiss. See Lantana Ins., Ltd. v. Thornton, 118 So. 3d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA
2013) and cases cited; Cuneo v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 899 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2005); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Sinclair, 808 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla.
3d DCA 2001) (holding: “The mere expense and inconvenience of litigation does not constitute harm sufficient to permit certiorari review, even if the order departs from the essential requirements of the law”). Further, the petition filed in the instant case fails to establish the prerequisite to invoking this court’s certiorari jurisdiction—an irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.
See Bd. of Trs. Of Internal Improvement Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., 99 So. 3d
450, 454-55 (Fla. 2012). We are therefore without jurisdiction to consider this on certiorari review.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)
- Lantana Ins., Ltd. v. Thornton, 118 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Eagle Arts Acad., Inc. v. Tri-City Elec. Co., Inc., 211 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Fineman v. Greenberg, 575 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Cuneo v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 899 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Clark v. State, 808 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Federico Gomez v. S & I Props., LLC, 220 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)