Safepoint Ins. Co. v. Schmitz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Safepoint Ins. Co. v. Schmitz

264 So. 3d 1142

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 2019

DocketCase No. 5D18-2054

StatusPublished

This text of 264 So. 3d 1142 (Safepoint Ins. Co. v. Schmitz) 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

Safepoint Ins. Co. v. Schmitz, 264 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having concluded, after full briefing, that the nonfinal order under review effectively is an order briefly staying the underlying action and not, as argued by Appellant, one granting injunctive relief, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. L.D. , 840 So.2d 432, 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (recognizing that an order staying a proceeding is not an appealable nonfinal order (citing *1143Perry v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. , 379 So.2d 429, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) ) ). We also decline to sua sponte grant certiorari relief.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice to either party addressing the merits of the order in a final appeal.

DISMISSED.

EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having concluded, after full briefing, that the nonfinal order under review effectively is an order briefly staying the underlying action and not, as argued by Appellant, one granting injunctive relief, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. L.D. , 840 So.2d 432, 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (recognizing that an order staying a proceeding is not an appealable nonfinal order (citing *1143Perry v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. , 379 So.2d 429, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) ) ). We also decline to sua sponte grant certiorari relief.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice to either party addressing the merits of the order in a final appeal.

DISMISSED.

EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 So. 3d 1142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safepoint-ins-co-v-schmitz-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack