MARY LUE DOBY, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PIRD DOBY, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNIE BELL GRIFFIN, 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.
This case addresses the appellability of interlocutory orders in a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle death. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the orders were neither final judgments nor interlocutory orders relating to venue or jurisdiction, and therefore were not subject to appellate review.
Interlocutory orders that are neither final judgments nor relate to venue or jurisdiction are not appealable as of right and do not qualify for review by common law certiorari unless there are exceptional circumstances showing the lower court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority.
“Neither the partial summary judgment, nor the order denying parts of the motion to strike, nor the order denying the motion to dismiss, nor the order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, is a final judgment. Each is merely a pretrial adjudication that certain issues of the case shall be deemed established for the trial of the case. Each is an interlocutory order.”
Establishes the foundational distinction between final and interlocutory orders that determines appellability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Lue Doby, as administratrix of the estate of Pird Doby (deceased), sued Annie Bell Griffin for negligent operation of a motor vehicle that result…
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 Common Law Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-plaintiff, sued the appellee-de-fendant, in an action at law, alleging that as a result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, plaintiff’s decedent was killed, and specifically alleging certain items of damages. Upon motion, the court struck from the complaint certain allegations as to specific items of damages, denied the motion as to the other items, and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant as to one of the items of damages alleged and denied summary judgment in all other respects. Plaintiff appeals from the partial summary judgment, and the defendant filed cross assignments of error pertaining to the order denying parts of the motion to strike, the order denying the motion to dismiss, and from the order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
Neither the partial summary judgment, nor the order denying parts of the motion to strike, nor the order denying the motion to dismiss, nor the order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, is a final judgment. Each is *874merely a pretrial adjudication that certain issues of the case shall be deemed established for the trial of the case. Each is an interlocutory order. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 2024, 2296, 2299, 2311, and 2314; Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.36(d), 30 F.S.A.; Brannon v. Johnston, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 779. In Evin R. Welch & Co. v. Johnson, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 390, we held that a judgment dismissing a cause as to certain parties was a final judgment from which an appeal would lie, but neither of the judgments or orders here are of that nature. Appeals from interlocutory orders at law, relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person, may be taken pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, 31 F.S.A.; Tel. Service Co. Inc. v. W. W. Hendricks, Jr., Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 436. The judgments and orders here do not relate to venue or jurisdiction over the person. We have dismissed an appeal from an interlocutory order where the appeal was not taken in accordance with the rule governing interlocutory appeals. Finneran v. Finneran, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 844.
Section 59.45, Florida Statutes. F.S.A., permits this court to- consider a notice of appeal as a petition for common law writ of certiorari, and we, therefore, consider whether or not we should treat the notice of appeal and appellee’s cross assignments of error as petitions for common law certiorari. Lovi v. North Shore Bank, Fla. App.1962, 137 So.2d 585.
“We are at once confronted with the propriety of reviewing by certiorari an interlocutory order in an action at law. Our Supreme Court, in recently considering this proposition, expressed the rule thusly: ‘This court will review an interlocutory order in law only under exceptional circumstances. Where it clearly appears that there is no full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment available to the petitioner, this court will consider granting the writ, as where the lower court acts without and in excess of its jurisdiction, or the order does not conform to essential requirements of law and may cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate.’ * * Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, Fla.App.1957, 101 So.2d 408.
Since the orders appealed from are neither final judgments nor interlocutory orders relating to venue or jurisdiction, and since they are not within the scope of review by common law certiorari, it, therefore, follows that this appeal must be, and the same is hereby dismissed.
SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Young, 162 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…. Y. v. O’Henry Tent & A. Co., 7 Cir. 1959, 266 F. 2d 200, 75 A.L.R.2d 1198. See 6 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.20[3] Part 3 (2nd ed. 1953) ; and Annot. 75 A.L.R.2d 1201, 1209-1213. And see, consistent with the above, Doby v. Griffin, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 873. The leading federal case of Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works, supra, involved a summary judgment for part of the. damages sought under a single claim or cause of action coupled with a determination that trial was necessary with reference to other dama…
-
Brown v. Wood, 202 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…endant was ordered to answer the third count, the dismissal of Counts 1 and 2 was an interlocutory order at law, not final, and therefore not appealable. Cf. McLean v. Plant Fruit Company, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 332; Doby v. Griffin, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 873. For reasons discussed infra, we find that Counts 4 and 5 of plaintiffs’ amended complaint do not state a separate cause of action but merely another theory of recovery. Accordingly, under the authority of Morse, it is clear that the trial court’s…
-
R. J. Brown, Inc. v. Seminerio, 246 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…an interlocutory order denying a motion for summary judgment. Our determination has support in the following decisions of our sister appellate courts: Meckler v. Hecht Rubber Corporation, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 186; Doby v. Griffin, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 873; Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 188. Accordingly, certiorari is denied without prejudice to appropriate appellate review subsequent to final judgment. Certiorari denied. WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boucher v. The Pure OIL Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Brannon v. Johnston, 83 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1955)
- Evin R. Welch & Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 138 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Finneran v. Finneran, 137 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Art Lovi v. N. Shore Bank, 137 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- TEL Serv. Co., Inc. v. Hendricks, 139 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)