FLORIDA CITRUS COMMISSION, APPELLANT,
v.
C. V. GRIFFIN, SR. AND C. V. GRIFFIN GROVES CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Citrus Commission appealed a trial court's denial of motions to quash witness subpoenas, but the appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's oral ruling was never reduced to writing and signed, failing to satisfy the rendition requirement for appealable orders.
An interlocutory order is not appealable unless it has been reduced to writing, signed, and made a matter of record as required by the Florida Appellate Rules. The distinction between final judgments and interlocutory orders does not affect this rendition requirement.
[1] An order is not rendered, and therefore not appealable, until it has been reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and made a matter of record.
[2] The requirement that an order be reduced to writing, signed, and recorded applies to interlocutory orders as well as final judgments.
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“a judgment, decision, order or decree is not rendered until 'such has been reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record' as required by F.A.R. 1.3”
Establishes the foundational rendition requirement for all orders, whether final or interlocutory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court denied the Florida Citrus Commission's motions to quash certain witness subpoenas. The trial judge dictated the order into the record …
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 Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
In this interlocutory appeal appellants seek to review the trial court’s denial of several motions to quash certain witness subpoenas. It is stipulated that the order appealed from was dictated into the record by the trial judge but that no order or other writing, conforming to the trial judge’s oral ruling, was signed by the judge.
Under the foregoing circumstances the order appealed from is a non-appealable order and therefore this appeal must be dismissed.1 In Egantoff v. Herring2 this court held that a judgment, decision, order or decree is not rendered until “such has been reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record” as required by F.A.R. 1.3, 32 F.S.A. (Italics ours). The only distinction between Egan-toff and this case is that there the court was. talking about a final judgment whereas here we are concerned with an interlocutory order. Such distinction is, however, without ,a substantive difference on the point, since it is the fruition of the judicial act under review, accomplished by its “rendition” as defined by F.A.R. 1.3, which forms the basis of the rationale in Egan-toff. The stage of the proceedings in which such judicial act was rendered is immaterial. This conclusion is fortified by the interlocutory appeal rule, F.A.R. 4.-2(g), which provides that, “Except as modified by this rule the other rules of the Florida Appellate Rules shall apply to interlocutory appeals.”; and nowhere within the provisions of this latter rule is there any departure from the “rendition” requirements of F.A.R. 1.3, supra. 3 Additionally, the clear import of F.A.R. 1.3, is that “rendition” as defined therein shall apply “Throughout [the] rules, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires * * * ”,4 and obviously neither the context nor subj ect matter with which we are here concerned requires a different interpretation or application of “rendition” than that contemplated by Egantoff, supra.
Accordingly, this interlocutory appeal is dismissed ex mero motu.
PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Griffin, 332 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…r. . (1942), 152 Fla. 126, 11 So. 2d 188. . See Griffin v. Florida Citrus Commission (1969), 32 Fla.Supp. 139. .See State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin (Fla.1970), 239 So. 2d 577. . See Florida Citrus Commission v. Griffin (Fla.App.2d, 1971), 249 So. 2d 42; State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin and Griffin v. State, Department of Citrus (Fla.App.2d, 1972), 257 So. 2d 116; (cert. discharged (Fla.1972), 266 So. 2d 36). . See Campbell v. Maze (Fla.App. 4th, 1975), 307 So. 2d 234; Granoff v. Cherin. (Fl…
-
State v. Maldonado, 156 So. 3d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…; see also Owens v. State, 579 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (district court of appeal did not have jurisdiction absent signed, written order by trial court and transcript could not substitute for written order); Fla. Citrus Comm’n v. Griffin, 249 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (even if order on appeal was dictated into the record, but the trial judge did not render a written order, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). Petition dismissed.…
-
Matthews v. Stefan M. Stein, P. A., 362 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…has held in prior cases in which this question was presented that an order is not rendered until it “has been reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record” as required by Florida Appellate Rule 1.8.1 Florida Citrus Commission v. Griffin, 249 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Egantoff v. Herring, 177 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the circuit court is quashed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opin…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- Braren v. Lawyers' Realty Abstract Co. OF Sarasota, 196 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Perez v. City OF Tampa, 191 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)