BILL ARFLIN, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• In re the Adoption of Kathryn Ann Stinebaker, 382 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …elief. Gordons Jewelry Co. v. Feldman, 351 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We further decline to treat the petition for certiorari as an appeal because the order is not final. Hancock v. Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1966); Epley v. Washington County, 358 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The petitioners shall not be prejudiced in any way to raise the merits of their case by appealing from a final order. PETITION DENIED. CROSS and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.…
• Connor v. State, 944 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
  …p., 867 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); United Water Fla., Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 728 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Dep’t of Transp. v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, 557 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Epley v. Washington County, 358 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In these instances, the order is considered interlocutory, the trial court is not divested of jurisdiction, and the litigation continues until a final order is entered. Hancock; Ponton v. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA…
• Kulp v. Gen. Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
  …r of August 3, 1977, which dismissed the cause but granted leave to amend, was nothing more than an interlocutory order that did not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction. Hancock v. Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1966); Epley v. Washington County, 358 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Brandal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 310 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Because the order of dismissal was not final, the trial court maintained discretion to entertain the belatedly filed third amended compla…