ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES, INC., AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Finality Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, a sub-subcontractor on a construction project, brought this action for a *243money judgment against his subcontractor, and the surety on the subcontractor’s performance bond. The surety filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for its failure to state a cause of action. The court endorsed upon the face of the motion to dismiss the words, “Motion Granted” signing and dating the same. This is the order from which plaintiff-appellant brings the appeal.
We are unable to consider the merits of the question presented. The “order” from which the appeal has been taken is one which at best merely granted the motion to dismiss and is not one which has the requisite finality to sustain a full appeal under Rule 3.2, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., Shotkin v. Deehl, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 538; Baker v. Colley, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 473, nor is the order of such a nature that we could treat the present appeal as an interlocutory appeal under Rule 4.2, F.A.R. as we did in Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 152.
Appeal dismissed.
REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lidsky Vaccaro & Montes, P.A. v. Morejon, 813 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…tain the traditional words of finality is not a final order subject to appellate review. See Catchings v. Floridar-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561 (Fla.1931); Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corp. v. Aerospace Industries, Inc., 254 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Guth v. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Danford v. City of Rockledge, 387 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). An order granting only summary judgment merely establishes an entitlement to a judgment, but is not itself a ju…
-
Danford v. City OF Rockledge, 387 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…nality nor other words of similar import. Without such language, the orders are not final judgments subject to appellate review. Guth v. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corp. v. Aerospace Industries, Inc., 254 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561 (1931). Second, we shall dispose of the cross-appeal. The cross-appeal seeks review of the denial of a motion for summary judgment. Such an order is no…
-
Kreager v. Glickman, 519 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…lable order as it fails to contain the words of finality necessary to sustain a full appeal. See Morffi v. AIU Insurance Company, 479 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). See also Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation v. Aerospace Industries, Inc., 254 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). However, since the order grants injunctive relief, it is reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B) which provides for the review [*667] of non-final orders which “grant, continue, modify, deny, or…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Tr. Co., 208 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Baker v. Colley, 104 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Shotkin v. Deehl, 148 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)