Piper Aircraft Co. v. Whyham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Whyham

455 So. 2d 650, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2017, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15029

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 1984

DocketNo. 84-273

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 455 So. 2d 650 (Piper Aircraft Co. v. Whyham) 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

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Whyham, 455 So. 2d 650, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2017, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15029 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss this non-final appeal brought under the auspices of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 because we do not have appellate jurisdiction.

It is argued that the order in question which reinstated a prior action concerned venue. We disagree upon authority of Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Finally, it is argued that the appeal qualifies because it is an appeal from an order entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Although the order refers to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, it could not be such an appeal because that rule, by its language, operates to relieve a party from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding. Here the earlier order of dismissal upon the ground of forum non conveniens was not a “final order.” Atria v. Anton, 379 So.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Guth v. Howard, 362 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation v. Aerospace Industries, Inc., 254 So.2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Shotkin v. Deehl, 148 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Baker v. Colley, 104 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).

We respectfully decline to treat this appeal as a petition for common law certiorari because we are of the opinion that appel[651]*651lant will have a full and adequate remedy via a plenary appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

LETTS, HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss this non-final appeal brought under the auspices of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 because we do not have appellate jurisdiction.

It is argued that the order in question which reinstated a prior action concerned venue. We disagree upon authority of Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Finally, it is argued that the appeal qualifies because it is an appeal from an order entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Although the order refers to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, it could not be such an appeal because that rule, by its language, operates to relieve a party from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding. Here the earlier order of dismissal upon the ground of forum non conveniens was not a “final order.” Atria v. Anton, 379 So.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Guth v. Howard, 362 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation v. Aerospace Industries, Inc., 254 So.2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Shotkin v. Deehl, 148 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Baker v. Colley, 104 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).

We respectfully decline to treat this appeal as a petition for common law certiorari because we are of the opinion that appel[651]*651lant will have a full and adequate remedy via a plenary appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

LETTS, HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 So. 2d 650, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2017, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piper-aircraft-co-v-whyham-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack