McGROTHA v. Pearson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGROTHA v. Pearson

39 So. 3d 533, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10136, 2010 WL 2735640

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 13, 2010

Docket1D09-1754

StatusPublished

This text of 39 So. 3d 533 (McGROTHA v. Pearson) 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

McGROTHA v. Pearson, 39 So. 3d 533, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10136, 2010 WL 2735640 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is appealing from an order granting the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appellant’s civil action in the circuit court. That order does not actually dismiss the case, and thus is not an appealable order. See e.g. Dedge v. Crosby, 914 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Johnson v. First City Bank of Gainesville, 491 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The inclusion of the words “with prejudice” does not make the order appealable, nor does the reference to a right to appeal or the accompanying citation to Latin Express Service, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 660 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The Latin Express case addressed the consequence of an agency’s failure to include notice of the right to appeal in an administrative order as was required under the Administrative Procedure Act, and does not pertain to the appellant’s civil action. See Benton v. Moore, 655 So.2d 1272, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Because the order granting the appellee’s motion does not actually dismiss the case in the circuit court, and in the absence of a separate order actually dismissing the case there, this appeal is dismissed.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is appealing from an order granting the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appellant’s civil action in the circuit court. That order does not actually dismiss the case, and thus is not an appealable order. See e.g. Dedge v. Crosby, 914 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Johnson v. First City Bank of Gainesville, 491 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The inclusion of the words “with prejudice” does not make the order appealable, nor does the reference to a right to appeal or the accompanying citation to Latin Express Service, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 660 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The Latin Express case addressed the consequence of an agency’s failure to include notice of the right to appeal in an administrative order as was required under the Administrative Procedure Act, and does not pertain to the appellant’s civil action. See Benton v. Moore, 655 So.2d 1272, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Because the order granting the appellee’s motion does not actually dismiss the case in the circuit court, and in the absence of a separate order actually dismissing the case there, this appeal is dismissed.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 So. 3d 533, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10136, 2010 WL 2735640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgrotha-v-pearson-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack