Dyes v. Dyes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dyes v. Dyes

454 So. 2d 746, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1821, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14891

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 1984

DocketNo. AZ-17

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 454 So. 2d 746 (Dyes v. Dyes) 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

Dyes v. Dyes, 454 So. 2d 746, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1821, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14891 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

Appellant takes an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s grant of a motion for protective order and partial grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We dismiss the appeal on our own motion.

The protective order is neither a final order nor a nonfinal, interlocutory order reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. In addition, the protective order does not warrant the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction. City of Williston v. Roadlander, 425 So.2d 1175, 1176 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

The order partially granting appel-lee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is likewise neither a final order nor a nonfi-nal, interlocutory order reviewable pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130. Sgrignuoili v. Barakat, 384 So.2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

The appeal is dismissed.

BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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