Furstace v. Migdall
This text of 161 So. 3d 559 (Furstace v. Migdall) 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
Joseph Furstace and Joseph Galuszka appeal from an order granting Allan Mig-dall’s motion to dismiss their second amended complaint. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court’s order did not reflect that the dismissal was “with prejudice,” nor did it otherwise suggest that Appellants were precluded from seeking relief under an alternative theory. See Jim Macon Bldg. Contractors v. Lake Cnty., 763 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); EIR, Inc. v. Elec. Molding Corp., 540 So.2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
161 So. 3d 559, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17404, 2014 WL 5392965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furstace-v-migdall-fladistctapp-2014.