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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 691 So. 2d 25 (Craven v. Skate N Space, Inc.) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 25, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3085, 1997 WL 144460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craven-v-skate-n-space-inc-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack