Furstace v. Migdall

161 So. 3d 559, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17404, 2014 WL 5392965
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 24, 2014
DocketNo. 5D13-2285
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Furstace v. Migdall, 161 So. 3d 559, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17404, 2014 WL 5392965 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

PALMER, EVANDER, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

JIM MACON BLDG. CONTRACTORS. INC. v. Lake County
763 So. 2d 1223 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
EIR, Inc. v. Electronic Molding Corp.
540 So. 2d 260 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.