Craven v. Skate N Space, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Craven v. Skate N Space, Inc.

691 So. 2d 25, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3085, 1997 WL 144460

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 1, 1997·No. No. 96-1928·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND SUGGESTION OF DIRECT CONFLICT

PER CURIAM.

We issued a per curiam affirmance without opinion in this case. In addition to several other issues presented, appellant sought to appeal an order denying a motion for summary judgment on a question involving an award of attorney’s fees. We declined to review that issue or to certify a conflict as suggested because, in our view, no appeal-able order had been entered on that issue. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Century Construction Corp., 656 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(non-final orders entered after final order on authorized motions which do not suspend rendition immediately reviewable only if they would not otherwise be reviewable following entry of subsequent final order); see also Scullin v. City of Pensacola, 667 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Our affir-mance is without prejudice to raise this issue when an appealable order has been entered. The motion for clarification is GRANTED to the extent indicated; however, we decline to accept the suggestion of conflict.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ„ concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND SUGGESTION OF DIRECT CONFLICT

PER CURIAM.

We issued a per curiam affirmance without opinion in this case. In addition to several other issues presented, appellant sought to appeal an order denying a motion for summary judgment on a question involving an award of attorney’s fees. We declined to review that issue or to certify a conflict as suggested because, in our view, no appeal-able order had been entered on that issue. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Century Construction Corp., 656 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(non-final orders entered after final order on authorized motions which do not suspend rendition immediately reviewable only if they would not otherwise be reviewable following entry of subsequent final order); see also Scullin v. City of Pensacola, 667 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Our affir-mance is without prejudice to raise this issue when an appealable order has been entered. The motion for clarification is GRANTED to the extent indicated; however, we decline to accept the suggestion of conflict.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ„ concur.

Craven v. Skate N Space, Inc., 691 So. 2d 25, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3085, 1997 WL 144460 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

691 So. 2d 25 (Craven v. Skate N Space, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related