ZORA MAE ARNOLD, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS R. BRADY, M.D., 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 the appeal because the lower court's order granting summary judgment was not a final order, and therefore, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. The court sua sponte dismissed the appeal.
No, an order merely granting a motion for summary judgment is not a final order. Therefore, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
“While the point was not raised, we are of the opinion that the foregoing order [*733] is not a "final" decision, order or judgment, within the provisions of Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(b), 31 F.S.A.”
This quote establishes the core reason for the court's decision: the order was not final.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Zora Mae Arnold, appealed an order from the trial court that granted the defendant, Dr. Louis R. Brady's, Motion for Summary Judgment. …
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 Judgment Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from an order entered in an action at law granting defendant-appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment
The order appealed from is as follows t
“This cause coming on to be heard upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having heard argument of counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is thereupon, upon consideration thereof,
“CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby granted.”
While the point was not raised, we are of the opinion that the foregoing order *733is not a “final” decision, order or judgment, within the provisions of Florida 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pinellas Cnty. v. Woolley, 189 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…reads: “Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Defendants’ * * * Motion for Summary Decree, be and the same is hereby granted.” This is clearly not a “final” decision, order or judgment within the provisions of F.A.R. 3.2(b), 31 F.S.A. Arnold v. Brady, 178 So. 2d 732 (D.C.A.Fla.1965). The case is one in equity, and Rule 4.2, subd. a, F.A.R., governing Interlocutory Appeals, states in part: “Appeals to district courts from interlocutory orders at law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person, appeals *…
-
Shupack v. Allstate Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…This order is merely authorization for a final judgment. It does not constitute a final judgment, nor is it an order from which an interlocutory appeal could properly lie. See Harris v. Mosteller, 253 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Arnold v. Brady, 178 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Lyden v. DePiera, 147 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Stone v. Buckley, 119 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Chastain v. Embry, 118 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Elliott v. Lazar, 104 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); and Renard v. Kir…
-
Guth v. Nell F. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…contemplation of Fla.R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Likewise, this is not a non-final order which may be reviewed by an interlocutory appeal. Fla.R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3). Since we have no jurisdiction, the appeal, sua sponte, is dismissed. Arnold v. Brady, 178 So. 2d 732 (Fla.2d DCA 1965); Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla.3d DCA 1958). GRIMES, C. J., and RYDER and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Shotkin v. Deehl, 148 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)