Haney v. Holmes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haney v. Holmes

358 So. 2d 1188, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15690

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 1978

DocketNo. 78-43

StatusPublished

This text of 358 So. 2d 1188 (Haney v. Holmes) 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

Haney v. Holmes, 358 So. 2d 1188, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15690 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mary L. Haney, plaintiff below, seeks to appeal an order which states “the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be in [sic] the same is hereby granted.” This is not a final decision, order, judgment or decree within the contemplation of Flori[1189]*1189da Appellate Rule 3.2(b). Likewise, this case is not one which formerly would have been cognizable in equity, so the order is not subject to an interlocutory appeal. Fla. R.App.P. 4.2(a).

Therefore, we have no jurisdiction, and this appeal is hereby dismissed sua sponte. Rizzuto v. DiPaolo, 357 So.2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Arnold v. Brady, 178 So.2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).

BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mary L. Haney, plaintiff below, seeks to appeal an order which states “the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be in [sic] the same is hereby granted.” This is not a final decision, order, judgment or decree within the contemplation of Flori[1189]*1189da Appellate Rule 3.2(b). Likewise, this case is not one which formerly would have been cognizable in equity, so the order is not subject to an interlocutory appeal. Fla. R.App.P. 4.2(a).

Therefore, we have no jurisdiction, and this appeal is hereby dismissed sua sponte. Rizzuto v. DiPaolo, 357 So.2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Arnold v. Brady, 178 So.2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).

BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 So. 2d 1188, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haney-v-holmes-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack