BERNARD M. SHOTKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT M. DEEHL, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal because the order being appealed was non-appealable and the appellant was attempting to improperly join third-party defendants. The court also denied a motion for a stay.
The order granting the motion to dismiss was not appealable. The appellant could not join third-party defendants in the manner attempted.
“The form of the order, which merely granted the motion, renders it non-appealable.”
Establishes that the order being appealed was not appealable.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed an order that granted a motion to dismiss. The appellant also filed a motion for a constitutional stay. The appellee filed a mo…
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-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
By order of the court and upon the ap-pellee’s motion to quash and the appellant’s motion for constitutional stay, oral argument of the respective parties was heard.
The instant appeal was from an order granting a motion to dismiss. The form of the order, which merely granted the motion, renders it non-appealable. Baker v. Colley, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 473. Moreover, an examination of the record and the order appealed discloses that the appellant is attempting to join third party defendants in support of a claim not germane to nor growing out of the plaintiff’s action. This constitutes third party practice and is not permitted by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Pan American Surety Co. v. Jefferson Construction Co., Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 726. Cf. Rule 14, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The motion for stay is accordingly denied and the appeal is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…and not appealable.2 Guth v. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); First National Bank of Searcy, Arkansas v. Collins, 360 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Horton v. Unigard Insurance Company, 355 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Shotkin v. Deehl, 148 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Mitchell v. Italian-American Club, 122 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). We reject Gries’ contention that the addition of the words “with prejudice” makes the order final. In so doing, we do not overlook Segal v. Garrigues, 320 So.…
-
Wash. Sec. Co. v. Tracy's Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., 166 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…2d 386; Weinmann v. Ligon, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 204; Baker v. Colley, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 473; Herpel, Inc. v. Pfundston, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 620. The Third District Court of Appeal has held likewise in Shotkin v. Deehl, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 538, (Law); cf. Mitchell v. Italian-American Club, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 228 (Chancery). The character of the order remains interlocutory whether granted at law or in chancery, and we have dismissed plenary appeals improperly taken from interlocutory…1 / 2
-
Zora Mae Arnold v. Louis R. Brady, M.D., 178 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…Appellate Rule 3.2(b), 31 F.S.A. We have no jurisdiction, therefore, to determine the merits of the points on appeal, and the appeal, ex mero motu, is dismissed. See Baker v. Colley, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 473; and Shotkin v. Deehl, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 538. ALLEN, C. J., SMITH, J., and Mc-NULTY, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur.…
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
- Baker v. Colley, 104 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- PAN Am. Sur. Co. v. Jefferson Constr. Co. & Emanuel Elec. Co., Inc., 99 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)