Crossland v. Marcobay Construction, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crossland v. Marcobay Construction, Inc.

967 So. 2d 422, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17212, 2007 WL 3144862

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 30, 2007·No. No. 1D07-4567·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of September 24, 2007, the Court has determined that it [423]*423lacks jurisdiction to review the order on appeal. The appellant has sought review of an Order on Defendants Drew Brady and Stephen Cowperthwaite’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. However, because the order merely grants a motion for summai’y judgment and fails to actually enter judgment, it is not a final appealable order. See Hickox v. Taylor, 933 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of September 24, 2007, the Court has determined that it [423]*423lacks jurisdiction to review the order on appeal. The appellant has sought review of an Order on Defendants Drew Brady and Stephen Cowperthwaite’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. However, because the order merely grants a motion for summai’y judgment and fails to actually enter judgment, it is not a final appealable order. See Hickox v. Taylor, 933 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Crossland v. Marcobay Construction, Inc., 967 So. 2d 422, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17212, 2007 WL 3144862 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

967 So. 2d 422 (Crossland v. Marcobay Construction, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related