Hamilton v. Ryan Foods Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamilton v. Ryan Foods Co.

867 So. 2d 1217, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2916, 2004 WL 438667

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-5161

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 867 So. 2d 1217 (Hamilton v. Ryan Foods Co.) 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

Hamilton v. Ryan Foods Co., 867 So. 2d 1217, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2916, 2004 WL 438667 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order of December 17, 2003, we dismiss this appeal as premature. The order on appeal reserved jurisdiction to determine collateral source set-offs, thereby rendering it nonfinal. Even assuming that the reservation of jurisdiction to determine collateral source set-offs could be extinguished by the parties’ failure to file a motion seeking such set-offs, [1218]*1218and assuming this left nothing further for the court to determine, nevertheless, the instant order would still be nonfinal. See Neuman v. Neuman, 858 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Ponton v. Gross, 576 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

DISMISSED.

BARFIELD, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order of December 17, 2003, we dismiss this appeal as premature. The order on appeal reserved jurisdiction to determine collateral source set-offs, thereby rendering it nonfinal. Even assuming that the reservation of jurisdiction to determine collateral source set-offs could be extinguished by the parties’ failure to file a motion seeking such set-offs, [1218]*1218and assuming this left nothing further for the court to determine, nevertheless, the instant order would still be nonfinal. See Neuman v. Neuman, 858 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Ponton v. Gross, 576 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

DISMISSED.

BARFIELD, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

867 So. 2d 1217, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2916, 2004 WL 438667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-ryan-foods-co-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack