SHELLIE ROWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
H. G. SMITH D/B/A H. G. SMITH REALTY AND JOHN STOCKS, 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.
Florida appellate court vacated a stay of proceedings in a money damages action where the plaintiff was not a party to the related action on which the stay was based, finding the stay not in accord with essential requirements of law.
A trial court may not stay proceedings in an action for money damages based on the pendency of a related action when the plaintiff is not a party to that related action and there is no clear likelihood the cases will be controlled by common results.
[1] A stay of proceedings in an action is improper when the plaintiff is not a party to the related action on which the stay is based and there is no clear likelihood that th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShellie Rowell sued H. G. Smith and John Stocks for money damages. The trial court stayed the proceedings pending disposition of another action involv…
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 Action For Money Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
This interlocutory appeal in an action for money damages was taken from an order staying proceedings pending the disposition of another action involving common facts, related but distinct issues, and some but not all the same parties. Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, is not a party to the other action.
Appellant’s interlocutory appeal is inappropriate because this action is not one formerly cognizable in equity. Florida Appellate Rule 4.2a. Yet, because no adequate remedy for the stay’s delay can be provided after final judgment, we treat the interlocutory appeal as a petition for certiorari. Article V, Section 2(a), Florida Constitution. Appellant is not a party to the action on which the stay of this case is predicated; disposition of that case evidently will be further delayed by appellate proceedings; and there is no clear likelihood that this case will be controlled by the results of the other. We consider the stay is not in accord with essential requirements of law. See Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The prayer of the petition for certiorari is therefore GRANTED, the stay order dissolved and the case remanded for further proceedings.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
BOYER, C. J., concurs specially.
BOYER, Chief Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached and that such result is required by application of the principles announced in Neale v. Aycock, cited in the majority opinion. However, under the facts of this case, even in the absence of Neale v. Aycock, the same result would be required.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Cent. Jersey Invs., Inc., 632 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…l court’s abatement of the declaratory judgment action on coverage. An order of abatement is properly reviewable by writ of certiorari, because there is no adequate remedy for the delay caused by abatement after final judgment. See Rowell v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). See generally Rodriguez v. Yount, 623 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); International Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Markham, 580 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The declaratory judgment action by the insurer sought a determin…
-
Sunshine State Serv. Corp. v. Dove Invs. OF Hillsborough, 468 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ition this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Sumter County circuit court staying the state court action pending disposition of respondents’ subsequently filed action in federal court. We have jurisdiction. See Rowell v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. den., 351 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1977). We agree with petitioners that the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law, and therefore quash the stay. On February 21, 1984, petitioners filed a multi-count complain…
-
Verlingo v. Telsey, 801 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…n any way by the result of the arbitration proceeding, except that the damages for which they might be held hable in the instant proceeding will be reduced by any damages the plaintiffs may recover in the arbitration proceeding. See Rowell v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). GUNTHER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
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
- Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)