LESLIE M. TUTTLE AND LOVIE R. TUTTLE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLOTTE S. ANDREWS JACKSON, 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 denying a new trial is not an appealable order, and the final judgment itself was not properly before the court as it lacked a judge's signature. The court emphasized the procedural requirements for appealable orders and judgments.
No, an order denying a motion for a new trial is not an appealable order. No, a judgment not signed by the trial judge is not a valid, appealable final judgment.
“Said order denying new trial is not an appealable order under the Rules.”
Establishes that the order denying the motion for new trial is not appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought to appeal an order denying their motion for a new trial, which was filed due to alleged inadequacy of a $1,000 verdict for each plai…
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 Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon examination of the record-on-appeal in the above entitled cause, it appears that appellants are attempting to appeal to this Court “the Order Denying New Trial of the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hills-borough County, bearing date the twenty-seventh day of July, 1965, entered in the above-styled cause and recorded in Circuit Court Minute Book 177, at page 716 on the 27th day of July, 1965.” Said order denying new trial is not an appeal-able order under the Rules. The motion for new trial is not before this Court, but it was apparently filed by plaintiffs below because of alleged inadequacy of the verdict and judgment which awarded each *818of the plaintiffs damages in the sum of $1,000, or $2,000 as total damages.
But the judgment itself, which is before this Court in the form of a Minute Book entry, certified by the Circuit Clerk, does not show that such Minute Book entry was signed by the trial Judge; and because thereof would not be an appealable final judgment as contemplated by Rules 3.2(b) and 1.3, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., even if the judgment itself had been included in the Notice of Appeal. See Egantoff v. Herring, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 260 and State of Florida ex rel. Herring v. Allen et al., opinion filed May 25, 1966, Fla., 189 So.2d 363.
For the foregoing stated reasons, the appeal herein is dismissed ex mero motu.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Egantoff v. Herring, 177 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Ann Allen Herring v. Honorable William P. Allen, 189 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1966)