Albers v. Hines

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Albers v. Hines

885 So. 2d 390, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14186, 2004 WL 2147005

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 27, 2004

DocketNo. 1D04-1674

StatusPublished

This text of 885 So. 2d 390 (Albers v. Hines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albers v. Hines, 885 So. 2d 390, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14186, 2004 WL 2147005 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek review of a nonfinal order denying their motion for summary judgment, in which they claimed entitlement to qualified immunity from respondent’s federal civil rights claims as a matter of law. Because the trial court did not rule that petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the order is not appealable pursuant to Florida [391]*391Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii). See Butler v. Dowling, 750 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Treating the request as a petition for a writ of certiorari (id. at 675), we deny the request because petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI DENIED.

WOLF, C.J.; BARFIELD and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek review of a nonfinal order denying their motion for summary judgment, in which they claimed entitlement to qualified immunity from respondent’s federal civil rights claims as a matter of law. Because the trial court did not rule that petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the order is not appealable pursuant to Florida [391]*391Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii). See Butler v. Dowling, 750 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Treating the request as a petition for a writ of certiorari (id. at 675), we deny the request because petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI DENIED.

WOLF, C.J.; BARFIELD and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

885 So. 2d 390, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14186, 2004 WL 2147005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albers-v-hines-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack