C.P. Ward, Inc. v. Enterprise Building Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.P. Ward, Inc. v. Enterprise Building Corp.

497 So. 2d 700, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2340, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10514

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 1986

DocketNo. 86-1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 497 So. 2d 700 (C.P. Ward, Inc. v. Enterprise Building Corp.) 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

C.P. Ward, Inc. v. Enterprise Building Corp., 497 So. 2d 700, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2340, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10514 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant, who was a defendant below, appeals the dismissal of his cross-claim for indemnity against appellee, a codefendant. Since the substance of the cross-claim arises out of the same circumstances underlying the plaintiffs action which is still pending, the appeal from the dismissal of the cross-claim is premature. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So.2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), petition for review denied, 482 So.2d 349 (Fla.1986); Duffy v. Realty Growth Investors, 466 So.2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We distinguish City of St. Petersburg v. Circuit Court, 422 So.2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), because that case involved the ap-pealability of a dismissal of the plaintiffs primary complaint at a time when a cross-claim was still pending.

We dismiss the appeal without prejudice to raise the issues upon plenary appeal from the final judgment.

SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant, who was a defendant below, appeals the dismissal of his cross-claim for indemnity against appellee, a codefendant. Since the substance of the cross-claim arises out of the same circumstances underlying the plaintiffs action which is still pending, the appeal from the dismissal of the cross-claim is premature. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So.2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), petition for review denied, 482 So.2d 349 (Fla.1986); Duffy v. Realty Growth Investors, 466 So.2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We distinguish City of St. Petersburg v. Circuit Court, 422 So.2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), because that case involved the ap-pealability of a dismissal of the plaintiffs primary complaint at a time when a cross-claim was still pending.

We dismiss the appeal without prejudice to raise the issues upon plenary appeal from the final judgment.

SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 700, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2340, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cp-ward-inc-v-enterprise-building-corp-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack