LILES PACKAGE STORE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WALGREEN CO., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, 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.
Liles Package Store sought to appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of Walgreen Co. in a declaratory judgment action involving a liquor package store license transfer denial. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the intervenor-appellant failed to establish how it was aggrieved by the judgment.
An appellant must establish in the appellate record how it is aggrieved or prejudiced by the judgment and how it will be injuriously affected economically or legally. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the record failed to show such injury or harm.
[1] A party seeking to intervene in litigation must demonstrate how they are aggrieved or prejudiced by the outcome to establish standing to appeal.
[2] Intervenors in a lawsuit are bound by the limitations and scope of the original proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record made in the trial court, which is before us on this appeal, does not reveal how or in what manner the intervenor-appellant is aggrieved or prejudiced by the summary final judgment or how it will be injuriously affected economically or legally by the summary final judgment.”
Establishes the core deficiency in appellant's appeal—failure to demonstrate concrete injury or aggrievement required for appellate standing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalgreen Co. sued the City of Miami seeking declaratory judgment relief. Liles Package Store, Inc. and others petitioned to intervene, stating they we…
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 Aggrieved Party cases and more on FLexlaw
Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, sued the City of Miami, Florida and sought a declaratory judgment and other relief. In answer to Walgreen’s amended complaint the city admitted that certain of the allegations therein were “moot insofar as distance requirements are concerned.”
Thereafter Liles Package Store, Inc. and others filed a petition to intervene in the cause. Their petition set forth only that petitioners were “licensed liquor package stores in the City of Miami” and that they were objectors at the planning and zoning and at the City of Miami hearing at which Walgreen’s application for transfer of a liquor package store license was denied and that they had an interest in the litigation as it was a zoning matter affecting the petitioners. These were the only pleadings filed by Liles or any other intervenors and they did not file a complaint or answer in intervention or any other pleadings or affidavits of any nature in the cause. An order was entered permitting petitioners to intervene in the pending litigation “in subordination to and in recognition of the propriety of the main proceeding.”
Ultimately and after notice the trial judge entered a final summary judgment for Walgreen’s and against the City of Miami.
The intervenor, Liles Package Store, Inc., is the only appellant from the summary final judgment.
The record made in the trial court, which is before us on this appeal, does not reveal how or in what manner the intervenor-appellant is aggrieved or prejudiced by the summary final judgment or how it will be injuriously affected economically or legally by the summary final judgment. See Credit Industrial Co. v. Re-Mark Chemical Co., Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 540; King v. Brown, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 187; Rule 3.11(a), F.A. R., 32 F.S.A.; 4 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Er*272ror §§ 178, 180, 182 and 183; and 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 186. Cf. Los Angeles Printing Co. v. Los Angeles Round-Up, 101 Cal.App. 733, 282 P. 401 (1929).
We previously denied a motion to dismiss filed by Walgreen’s without prejudice to argue the point on appeal. We now grant the motion and the appeal is
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Ann v. Dalton, 246 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…es and nephews [appellants] under the laws of intestacy as there was no showing that the residuary estate could or would fail to pass under and in accordance with the terms of the codicil. Cf. Liles Package Store, Inc. v. Walgreen Co., Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 271; Wellman v. Carter, 286 Mass. 237, 190. N.E. 493 (1934); In Re Carothers’ Estate, 300 Pa. 185, 150 A. 585 (1930); 3 Page, Wills § 26.52 and 57 Am. Jur. Wills § 994. JURISDICTION At the threshold of this appeal, we are presented with a question whi…
Authorities Cited
- Rivas v. Prof'l Prot. & Investigations Agency, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., Inc., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1953)