Dyes v. Dyes

454 So. 2d 746, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1821, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14891
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 22, 1984·No. No. AZ-17·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

454 So. 2d 746 (Dyes v. Dyes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steve Morales v. Reservoir Media Management, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026
Allan v. Hill
502 So. 2d 7 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)