Florida Power & Light Co. v. Hogue

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Hogue

438 So. 2d 975, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22448

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1537

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 438 So. 2d 975 (Florida Power & Light Co. v. Hogue) 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

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Hogue, 438 So. 2d 975, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22448 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Florida Power & Light Company attempts to appeal a non-final order which finds that they are liable to Hogue for insurance coverage. The company asserts that this court has jurisdiction to review such an order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) and Gallahad Associates v. Rose, 392 So.2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bruns, 429 So.2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), this court distinguished Rose and held that, under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), this court does not have jurisdiction to review these orders. We also decline to review. this order [976]*976through certiorari. We acknowledge that this opinion and Brans are in direct conflict with Alamo Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Summers, 404 So.2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and P. & H. Vehicle Rental and Leasing Corp. v. Garner, 416 So.2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Florida Power & Light Company attempts to appeal a non-final order which finds that they are liable to Hogue for insurance coverage. The company asserts that this court has jurisdiction to review such an order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) and Gallahad Associates v. Rose, 392 So.2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bruns, 429 So.2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), this court distinguished Rose and held that, under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), this court does not have jurisdiction to review these orders. We also decline to review. this order [976]*976through certiorari. We acknowledge that this opinion and Brans are in direct conflict with Alamo Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Summers, 404 So.2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and P. & H. Vehicle Rental and Leasing Corp. v. Garner, 416 So.2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 So. 2d 975, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-power-light-co-v-hogue-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack