Arthur v. Smith
1 So. 3d 1184, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 668, 2009 WL 212056
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Arthur v. Smith. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5771 →
Opinion
The Court has determined that the claims disposed of by the orders on appeal are inextricably intertwined with the claims and counterclaims that remain pending, and that the appeal is therefore premature. Cf. Mass. Life Ins. Co. v. Crapo, 918 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, the appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Premature, filed on November 5, 2008, is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellants’ Motion to Supplement the Record, filed in November 12, 2008, is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Arthur v. Smith, 1 So. 3d 1184, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 668, 2009 WL 212056 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).
1 So. 3d 1184 (Arthur v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Massachusetts Life Ins. Co. v. Crapo
918 So. 2d 393 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)