Daniel v. Woodcock
This text of 963 So. 2d 357 (Daniel v. Woodcock) 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.
Opinion
Upon consideration of the appellants’ response, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED as premature. See Polk County v. Sofka, 702 So.2d 1243 (Fla.1997) (quashing decision of the appellate court because it lacked jurisdiction even though the stipulated final judgment had incorporated a settlement agreement, which expressly provided for jurisdiction in the appellate court); Lovett v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 187 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1966) (stating appellate court jurisdiction “cannot be conferred by stipulation or endowed by action of the court”); Irvine v. T. Southwood 1295, Inc., 948 So.2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Mass. Life Ins. Co. v. Crapo, 918 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding pending claims are interrelated and the order is not immediately appealable partial final judgment even if different legal theories or additional facts are involved in the separate counts).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
963 So. 2d 357, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13297, 2007 WL 2409454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-woodcock-fladistctapp-2007.