IVAN I. BRANNON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
EDITH M. JOHNSTON, APPELLEE
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.
In this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a summary judgment order on liability in a negligence case, holding that such an order is interlocutory and does not support an appeal until final disposition of all issues, including damages.
The order is interlocutory and does not support an appeal. Under Rule 1.36(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and established appellate practice, an appeal lies only from a final judgment or decree; summary judgments on the issue of liability alone, though recognized by rule, are explicitly interlocutory in character and do not permit appeal until all issues have been resolved.
“A summary judgment or decree, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.”
This quote from Rule 1.36(c) establishes that while liability judgments may be rendered separately, they are explicitly interlocutory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Brannon was the defendant in an automobile negligence action brought by appellee Johnston. The trial judge entered an order on a motion for …
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 Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
THORNAL, Justice.
Appellant Brannon was defendant in an automobile negligence case in which the trial Judge entered an order finding that the appellant was guilty of negligence and specifically ordering “that at the trial of this Cause the only matter in issue will be the damages” suffered by the appellee Johnston, who was plaintiff below. From this order which was entered on a motion for summary judgment, the appellant appeals contending that the order is sufficiently final in nature to support an appeal.
Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal contending that the order was interlocutory and that no appeal will lie until appropriate disposition has been made of all issues in the cause.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted on the ground stated. Rule 1.36(c) of our Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., reads in part as follows:
“ * * * A summary judgment or decree, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.” (Emphasis added.)
By this rule we recognize the interlocutory nature of the order from which the appeal before us was perfected.
Unless provision is made by Rule or Statute for an appeal from an interlocutory order, it is the general rule to which we have consistently adhered that an appeal will lie only from a final judgment or decree. See Martin v. Meyer, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 597; and Cone v. Benjamin, 142 Fla. 604, 195 So. 416.
Consistent with our previous holdings, it is clear that in the case before us the judicial labor has not been completed, the order appealed from is clearly interlocutory in character and will, therefore, not support the appeal taken.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is, therefore, granted and appellant’s motion for a supersedeas is denied.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…nt go hence without day” and that the entry first above quoted was not such a final judgment as would warrant review by writ of error. ' Review of a summary judgment as to liability only was sought by direct appeal in Brannon v. Johnston, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 779, 780. The summary judgment as to liability provided that the only matter in issue at the trial would be the plaintiff’s damages. The -Supreme Court held that such an order was interlocutory and not sufficiently final in nature to support an appeal.…
-
Baker v. Colley, 104 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…99 So. 2d 719, the District Court of Appeals, Third District, held that an order granting a motion for summary judgment in a common law action was not a final judgment and subject to review on appeal. In the case of Brannon v. Johnston, Fla. 1955, 83 So. 2d 779, the circuit court, in a negligence action on motion for summary judgment, entered an order which found the defendant guilty of negligence and provided that the only matter in issue at trial would be plaintiff’s damages. From that order the defendan…
-
Holland H. Chastain v. Embry, 118 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…a provision by rule or statute otherwise authorizing an appeal from an interlocutory order. See Greyhound Corporation v. Kelly, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 471; Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 719; Brannon v. Johnston, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 779; and Rules 3.2(b) and 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. The appeal does not concern venue or jurisdiction over the person. Since there is no statute which applies and since there is no other rule to take this appeal from under the interlocutor…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cone v. Lottie K. Benjamin, 142 Fla. 604 (Fla. 1940)
- Martin v. Meyer, 68 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1953)