Rubinstein v. Sokolowski

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rubinstein v. Sokolowski

178 So. 2d 740

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 28, 1965

DocketNo. 65-238

StatusPublished

This text of 178 So. 2d 740 (Rubinstein v. Sokolowski) 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

Rubinstein v. Sokolowski, 178 So. 2d 740 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from two orders entered in a common law action in the circuit court in Dade County, an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a default for failure of a defendant to respond to a notice for discovery deposition, and an order denying rehearing.

These orders were not appealable, for the reason that they were interlocutory and not final, and not within the exceptions in rule 4.2, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.'

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from two orders entered in a common law action in the circuit court in Dade County, an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a default for failure of a defendant to respond to a notice for discovery deposition, and an order denying rehearing.

These orders were not appealable, for the reason that they were interlocutory and not final, and not within the exceptions in rule 4.2, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 So. 2d 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubinstein-v-sokolowski-fladistctapp-1965.