RAYMOND E. FEINER T/A FEINER'S INSURANCE AGENCY, PETITIONER,
v.
SUN RAY DRUG CO. OF FLA., INC., RESPONDENT
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.
Feiner obtained a summary judgment against Sun Ray Drug Co., but the Circuit Court reversed and remanded for jury trial on the grounds that factual disputes existed. The Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari review because the Circuit Court's remand order was not final and appealable.
The Circuit Court's order is not a final judgment because it merely directs the trial court to take further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's expressed view. Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Circuit Court's action by certiorari.
“An ordinary judgment of reversal remanding a cause for new trial is not usually deemed final. Simple directions that the trial court take further proceedings in the case do not inject finality into the judgment.”
Establishes the governing legal principle that remand orders are not final judgments subject to appellate review
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFeiner, trading as Feiner's Insurance Agency, sued Sun Ray Drug Co. of Florida, Inc. The Civil Court of Record awarded summary final judgment to Feine…
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 Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
The Civil Court of Record of Dade County awarded a summary final judgment to Raymond E. Feiner, trading as Fciner’s Insurance Agency, and against the Sun Ray Drug Co. of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, in the amount of $1,394.41 and court costs. Appeal was prosecuted to the Circuit Court of Dade County and that Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, reversed the cause, finding “that the factual dispute was one for a jury’s determination.” The judgment of the Circuit Court was that the cause be “reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our. expressed view.”
We are asked to issue common law certiorari to review the actions of the Circuit Court.
The effect of the Circuit Court’s judgment was to vacate and set aside the final summary judgment of the Civil Court of Record and to remand the cause for further proceedings in conformity with the Court’s view. This order required the Civil Court of Record to submit the issues to a jury for determination. Under such circumstances, there is no final judgment and, therefore, nothing for us to review. 5 Fla.Jur. 495 (paragraph 11).
“An ordinary judgment of reversal remanding a cause for new trial is not usually deemed final. Simple directions that the trial court take further proceedings in the case do not inject finality into the judgment. Nor do directions to take further proceedings not inconsistent with the appellate court’s decision effect finality.” 5 Fla.Jur. 499. See also Grodin v. Railway Express Agency, 116 Fla. 378, 156 So. 476, and the cases cited in that opinion.
Certiorari denied.
TERRELL, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mystan Marine, Inc. v. Harrington, 339 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1976)…other grounds, Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1965). . 101 So. 2d 808, 811 (Fla.1958). . Saffran v. Adler, 152 Fla. 405, 12 So. 2d 124 (1943); Brundage v. O’Berry, 101. Fla. 320, 134 So. 520 (1931). . Feiner v. Sun Ray Drug Co., 86 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1956); Tart v. State, 96 Fla. 77, 117 So. 698 (1928). . Article V, § 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution provides: “A district court of appeal may issue [*202] writs of certiorari . . (emphasis added). It is also possible, of course, that-the…
Authorities Cited
- Grodin v. Ry. Express Agency, 116 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1934)