BERNARD STEVENS, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 appellate court dismissed an appeal because the order being appealed was not a final decree, but rather an order denying reconsideration of a prior dismissal. The court emphasized that appeals must be taken from final judgments.
The order dated December 11, 1963, was not a final decree. The actual termination of the cause occurred on April 5, 1963, when the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, with the case to be dismissed with prejudice if no amended complaint was filed within fifteen days.
“The appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the order was not a final decree but was in fact an order denying reconsideration.”
This quote establishes the appellee's argument for dismissal and the nature of the order being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed an appeal on January 31, 1964, directed to an order dated December 11, 1963. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing tha…
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 Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal was filed on January 31, 1964, and directed to an order recorded the 11th day of December, 1963. The appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the order was not a final decree but was in fact an order denying reconsideration.
We have examined the supplemental record submitted and find that the cause was terminated on the 5th day of April, 1963, by an order which provided that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted and that if no amended complaint was filed within fifteen days “this cause shall stand dismissed with prejudice to the plaintiff.” Therefore, this appeal is dismissed upon the rule stated in Brenner v. Gelernter, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 306; Womack v. Goldberg, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 758; Kaemmerlen v. Shannon, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 315.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…amend expressly provides that failure to amend will result in dismissal with prejudice. See National Shawmut Bank of Boston v. Woodard, 220 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1969); Stevens v. Metropolitan, Dade County, 164 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Second, a holding that opportunity for argument on a motion for rehearing is sufficient to protect a plaintiff’s right to notice under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.420(b), not only directly conflicts with the express p…
-
Hancock v. Wllford J. Piper and Alida Piper, 175 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…he requisite finality to relieve the court of further judicial labor in the case. Cf. Washington Security Co. v. Tracy’s Plumbing and Pumps, Inc., Fla. App.1964, 166 So. 2d 680, 682. Compare Stevens v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla. [*208] App.1964, 164 So. 2d 273, cited by appellants where the complaint was dismissed by an order which provided that if an amended complaint were not filed within fifteen days “ ‘this cause shall stand dismissed with prejudice * * *.’ ” Other cases cited by the appellants are si…
Authorities Cited
- Howard Johnson, Inc. v. State Rd. Dep't OF Fla., 90 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1956)
- Marvell Womack v. Burton F. Goldberg and Joyce S. Goldberg, 117 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Kaemmerlen v. Shannon, 119 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Leavstrom v. Muston, 119 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)