Morris v. Painewebber Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morris v. Painewebber Inc.

852 So. 2d 352, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12192, 2003 WL 21939041

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 2003

DocketNo. 1D03-0881

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 852 So. 2d 352 (Morris v. Painewebber Inc.) 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

Morris v. Painewebber Inc., 852 So. 2d 352, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12192, 2003 WL 21939041 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellee’s motion to dismiss and the appellants’ response thereto, as well as the appellants’ response to the Court’s order of May 19, 2003, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not final. Specifically, because the lower tribunal’s Final Judg[353]*353ment Confirming Arbitration Award indicates that the appellants’ cross-claim to the Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award remains pending, judicial labor remains, and the appeal is consequently premature. See generally Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, 621 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(observing that “a final decree marks the end of judicial labor,” and applying finality test: “whether the case is disposed of by the order and whether a question remains open for judicial determination”). Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ERVIN, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ„ CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellee’s motion to dismiss and the appellants’ response thereto, as well as the appellants’ response to the Court’s order of May 19, 2003, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not final. Specifically, because the lower tribunal’s Final Judg[353]*353ment Confirming Arbitration Award indicates that the appellants’ cross-claim to the Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award remains pending, judicial labor remains, and the appeal is consequently premature. See generally Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, 621 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(observing that “a final decree marks the end of judicial labor,” and applying finality test: “whether the case is disposed of by the order and whether a question remains open for judicial determination”). Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ERVIN, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ„ CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

852 So. 2d 352, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12192, 2003 WL 21939041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-painewebber-inc-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack