Pannell v. Triangle/Oaks Ltd. Partnership

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pannell v. Triangle/Oaks Ltd. Partnership

783 So. 2d 325, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4706, 2001 WL 345238

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-5059

StatusPublished

This text of 783 So. 2d 325 (Pannell v. Triangle/Oaks Ltd. Partnership) 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

Pannell v. Triangle/Oaks Ltd. Partnership, 783 So. 2d 325, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4706, 2001 WL 345238 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pannell seeks review of a non-final order vacating a default (not a default judgment) entered by the trial court. The order of which Pannell seeks review is not an ap-pealable non-final order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. E.g., Rodriguez v. Young America Corp., 717 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing numerous cases). See also Philip J. Pado-vano, Florida Appellate Practice § 22.16, at 431-32 (2d ed.1997). Because Pannell candidly “concedes she cannot show a departure from the essential requirements of law under the certiorari standard,” we decline to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari. The appeal is dismissed.

DISMISSED.

ALLEN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pannell seeks review of a non-final order vacating a default (not a default judgment) entered by the trial court. The order of which Pannell seeks review is not an ap-pealable non-final order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. E.g., Rodriguez v. Young America Corp., 717 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing numerous cases). See also Philip J. Pado-vano, Florida Appellate Practice § 22.16, at 431-32 (2d ed.1997). Because Pannell candidly “concedes she cannot show a departure from the essential requirements of law under the certiorari standard,” we decline to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari. The appeal is dismissed.

DISMISSED.

ALLEN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

783 So. 2d 325, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4706, 2001 WL 345238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pannell-v-triangleoaks-ltd-partnership-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack