Schmotzer v. Poisson

345 So. 2d 769
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 7, 1977·No. No. 77-55·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The Appellants, by interlocutory appeal under Fla.App. Rule 4.2, seek review of an Order denying intervention below. The Order says “the motion to intervene of various persons filed October 27, 1976 is hereby denied.” Only the Order is before us so we shall assume jurisdiction under our authority under Fla.App. Rule 4.2 as an interlocutory appeal since the briefs agree the original action was one sounding in equity.

But after assuming jurisdiction we have no choice but to affirm since no other record or essential pleadings are before us. Pierson v. Sharp, 283 So.2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, 203 So.2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Also see Fla.App. Rule 4.2 and Fla.App. Rule 4.5.

AFFIRMED.

MAGER, C. J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur.

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

Schmotzer v. Poisson, 345 So. 2d 769 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

345 So. 2d 769 (Schmotzer v. Poisson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strauser v. State
360 So. 2d 113 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)