C & L Transport of Citrus Co. v. Osteen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C & L Transport of Citrus Co. v. Osteen

763 So. 2d 1217, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6405, 2000 WL 679756

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 26, 2000·No. No. 1D00-0323·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having considered appellant’s response to the show cause order dated February 3, 2000, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Final Summary Judgment of which appellant seeks review merely grants a motion and does not actually determine liability, the order is not appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a) (3)(C) (iv). See Knight v. Nelson, 574 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). And the Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is also not an appealable order. See Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

DISMISSED.

JOANOS, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having considered appellant’s response to the show cause order dated February 3, 2000, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Final Summary Judgment of which appellant seeks review merely grants a motion and does not actually determine liability, the order is not appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a) (3)(C) (iv). See Knight v. Nelson, 574 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). And the Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is also not an appealable order. See Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

DISMISSED.

JOANOS, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.

C & L Transport of Citrus Co. v. Osteen, 763 So. 2d 1217, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6405, 2000 WL 679756 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

763 So. 2d 1217 (C & L Transport of Citrus Co. v. Osteen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related