Haley v. Milam

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haley v. Milam

100 So. 2d 643

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1958

DocketNo. A-47

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 So. 2d 643 (Haley v. Milam) 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

Haley v. Milam, 100 So. 2d 643 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of motion to quash the appeal on the ground that it is an attempted appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, which order is not a final judgment within the terms of Section 59.02(1), Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A., and it appearing from the record that the facts stated in the motion are correct and that this cause is not within the exceptions found in Section 59.03, 59.04, or 59.05, Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A., it follows that this court does not have jurisdiction of such attempted appeal and the same is hereby quashed upon the authority of Henderson v. Stevens, 157 Fla. 641, 26 So.2d 656.

STURGIS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and WILLIS, Ben C., A. J., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of motion to quash the appeal on the ground that it is an attempted appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, which order is not a final judgment within the terms of Section 59.02(1), Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A., and it appearing from the record that the facts stated in the motion are correct and that this cause is not within the exceptions found in Section 59.03, 59.04, or 59.05, Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A., it follows that this court does not have jurisdiction of such attempted appeal and the same is hereby quashed upon the authority of Henderson v. Stevens, 157 Fla. 641, 26 So.2d 656.

STURGIS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and WILLIS, Ben C., A. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 2d 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haley-v-milam-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack