Siegmeister v. Johnson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Siegmeister v. Johnson

197 So. 3d 1292, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 2016 WL 4608086

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 2016

DocketNo. 1D16-3095

StatusPublished

This text of 197 So. 3d 1292 (Siegmeister v. Johnson) 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

Siegmeister v. Johnson, 197 So. 3d 1292, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 2016 WL 4608086 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks' review of an order styled “Final Judgment for Plaintiff.” The order said the court was “finding] in favor of the Plaintiff,” but was retaining jurisdiction “to entertain any additional relief that [1293]*1293the parties may seek and be entitled to based upon [the] ruling.” Finding that this order is not an appealable final order, we dismiss.

Generally, an order is final and ripe for appeal when “the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected.” See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974); see also Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002) (“A final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary”). Here, the “Final Judgment” reserves jurisdiction to consider requests for additional relief and therefore contemplates additional judicial labor.

DISMISSED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks' review of an order styled “Final Judgment for Plaintiff.” The order said the court was “finding] in favor of the Plaintiff,” but was retaining jurisdiction “to entertain any additional relief that [1293]*1293the parties may seek and be entitled to based upon [the] ruling.” Finding that this order is not an appealable final order, we dismiss.

Generally, an order is final and ripe for appeal when “the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected.” See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974); see also Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002) (“A final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary”). Here, the “Final Judgment” reserves jurisdiction to consider requests for additional relief and therefore contemplates additional judicial labor.

DISMISSED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 1292, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 2016 WL 4608086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegmeister-v-johnson-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack