Rizzuto v. DiPaolo
This text of 357 So. 2d 490 (Rizzuto v. DiPaolo) 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.
Opinion
Rosario R. RIZZUTO, Appellant,
v.
Philip E. DiPAOLO, III, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Frank H. Bass, Jr., of Martin J. Jones, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Dennis E. Dabroski and William D. Slicker, of Lyle, Skipper, Wood & Anderson, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff/appellant seeks to appeal an order which reads "that defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby granted." This is not a final decision, order, judgment, or decree within the contemplation of Fla. R.App.P. 3.2(b). Likewise, the case is not one which formerly would have been cognizable in equity so the order is not subject to *491 an interlocutory appeal. Fla.R.App.P. 4.2(a). Since we have no jurisdiction, the appeal, sua sponte, is dismissed. Arnold v. Brady, 178 So.2d 732 (Fla.2d DCA 1965); Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, 99 So.2d 719 (Fla.3d DCA 1958).
GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
357 So. 2d 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizzuto-v-dipaolo-fladistctapp-1978.