WINDOWMASTER CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES A. KNOWLES, INC., AND SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, 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 appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of a motion for rehearing, holding that an appeal from such a denial does not bring up prior interlocutory orders for review. The court also found the original venue transfer order to be correct on the merits.
No, an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for rehearing does not bring up for appellate review the correctness of other interlocutory orders previously entered in the cause.
“An interloctory appeal from an order denying a motion for rehearing does not bring up for appellate review the correctness of other interlocutory orders previously entered in the cause.”
This quote states the primary legal principle relied upon by the court to limit the scope of the appeal.
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, Windowmaster Corp., filed a motion for rehearing after the trial court transferred the case from Dade County to Pinellas County due to …
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 Improper Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal is from an order of May 11, 1966 which denied the plaintiff’s (appellant’s) motion for rehearing. The motion for rehearing was directed to a previous order of April 1, 1966, which had transferred the cause from Dade County to Pinellas County, Florida, on the grounds of improper venue.
An interloctory appeal from an order denying a motion for rehearing does not bring up for appellate review the correctness of other interlocutory orders previously entered in the cause. Taborsky v. Mathews, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 880; McNary v. Hudson, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 73. No error having been demonstrated, we affirm.
Notwithstanding this rule, we have examined the case on its merits and have determined that the order transferring the cause because of improper venue was correct.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holzman v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 303 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…as timely as to the order denying rehearing, an appeal from that order does not bring up for appellate review the correctness of other interlocutory orders previously entered in the cause. Windowmaster Corp. v. James A. Knowles, Inc., Fla. App.1966, 193 So. 2d 46. Appeal dismissed. WALDEN, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- McNARY v. Hudson, 110 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Luella Maxine Owca and Leo W. Owca v. Sigmund S. Zemzicki and Betty B. Zemzicki, 137 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)