STANLEY EUGENE DYER, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMMLE BATTLE, APPELLEE; STANLEY EUGENE DYER, APPELLANT, V. SAMMIE BATTLE ET AL., APPELLEES
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 held that it lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals challenging orders concerning a party's substantive rights to maintain an action, as opposed to orders affecting the court's jurisdiction over the person. The court dismissed appeals where a plaintiff voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction but sought to challenge adverse decisions on the merits.
The court held that the interlocutory orders do not fall within the appealable class under Rule 4.2 because they relate to a party's substantive rights to maintain an action, not to the court's jurisdiction over the person. Jurisdiction over the person is obtained through service of process or voluntary submission and is distinct from rights regarding the merits of a case.
“Jurisdiction is the power conferred on a court by the sovereign to take cognizance of the subject matter of a litigation and the parties brought before it and to hear and determine the issues and render judgment. It is not dependent upon the correctness of the decision rendered.”
Establishes the court's definition of jurisdiction and distinguishes it from the correctness of decisions on the merits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanley Eugene Dyer appealed two interlocutory orders from a common law action. In one case, Dyer challenged an order finding that an insurance compan…
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 Voluntary Submission To Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
We do not reach the merits of these consolidated interlocutory appeals because we find that we do not have jurisdiction.
The appellant attempts on appeal to have reviewed two orders rendered in a common law action which he recognizes as being interlocutory. It is his contention, however, that the orders relate to questions of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and therefore come within Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, 31 F.S.A., which provides that interlocutory appeals may be taken from orders entered at law relating to jurisdiction over the person. Neither of the orders here sought to be appealed fall within the class of appeal-able interlocutory orders provided for in the rule.
Jurisdiction is the power conferred on a court by the sovereign to take cognizance of the subject matter of a litigation and the parties brought before it and to hear and determine the issues and render judgment. It is not dependent upon the correctness of the decision rendered. Jurisdiction of the person is obtained by service of process or voluntary submission in order that a person may be heard. The appellant voluntarily submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court seeking a decision that an insurance company could not sue á third party tortfeasor in the name of appellant (Case #4842) and, conversely, that appellant could bring a second action in his own name against the same tort-feasor while the first suit was still pending (Case #4841). These interlocutory orders relate to the right of the appellant to maintain an action but they do not relate to the court’s jurisdiction over his person. The rights of a party are not synonymous with jurisdiction over his person. Malone v. Meres, 1926, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677.
An appropriate order will be entered in each case granting appellee’s motion to dismiss.
SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1982)…Rule 1.220(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 353 So. 2d 95 (Fla.1977). Thus, interlocutory orders relating to the right of plaintiffs to maintain an action generally do not determine the court’s jurisdiction over the plaintiffs. Dyer v. Battle, 168 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). We hold that a nonfinal order pertaining to the composition of a plaintiff class is not an order determining jurisdiction of the person and is therefore not [*658] reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)…
-
Warren v. Se. Leisure Sys., Inc., 522 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…y its president stating the judgment remained unsatisfied.) . See also State Road Dept. v. Brill, 171 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (order denying dismissal of suit as barred by sovereign immunity nonappealable non-final order) and Dyer v. Battle, 168 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (orders abating one action and denying dismissal of second action not reviewable interlocutory orders).…
-
State v. Pelsey, 779 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ion. We disagree. “Jurisdiction is the power conferred on a court by the sovereign to take cognizance of the subject matter of a litigation and the parties brought before it and to hear and determine the issues and render judgment.” Dyer v. Battle, 168 So. 2d 175, 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Accord Willie v. State, 600 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Tucker v. State, 417 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Deeb, Inc. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Columbia County, 196 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). “Jurisdiction of th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)