Harriman v. Goff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harriman v. Goff

929 So. 2d 718, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8232, 2006 WL 1419729

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2006

DocketNo. 1D06-0275

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 929 So. 2d 718 (Harriman v. Goff) 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

Harriman v. Goff, 929 So. 2d 718, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8232, 2006 WL 1419729 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of February 28, 2006, the Court has determined that the order does not constitute a final order of dismissal. Specifically, although the order grants motions to dismiss with regard to defendants Elmer Goff and AIG Insurance, the lower tribunal has not yet dismissed them as parties to the action. See generally Benton v. Moore, 655 So.2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Furthermore, the remainder of the order on appeal merely contains interlocutory rulings not yet ripe for appellate review. See, e.g., Pagenet, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 843 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In light of the dismissal, the appellant’s Motions for Enlargement of Time to Submit Brief, filed on March 3, 2006, and April 24, 2006, are denied as moot.

ALLEN, WOLF, and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of February 28, 2006, the Court has determined that the order does not constitute a final order of dismissal. Specifically, although the order grants motions to dismiss with regard to defendants Elmer Goff and AIG Insurance, the lower tribunal has not yet dismissed them as parties to the action. See generally Benton v. Moore, 655 So.2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Furthermore, the remainder of the order on appeal merely contains interlocutory rulings not yet ripe for appellate review. See, e.g., Pagenet, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 843 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In light of the dismissal, the appellant’s Motions for Enlargement of Time to Submit Brief, filed on March 3, 2006, and April 24, 2006, are denied as moot.

ALLEN, WOLF, and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

929 So. 2d 718, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8232, 2006 WL 1419729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harriman-v-goff-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack