Simon v. Tampa Electric Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simon v. Tampa Electric Co.

198 So. 2d 379, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4772

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 19, 1967

DocketNo. 7433

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 So. 2d 379 (Simon v. Tampa Electric Co.) 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

Simon v. Tampa Electric Co., 198 So. 2d 379, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4772 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The above case involving an action at law, was orally argued before this court on April 13, 1967. A member of the court questioned the finality of the order upon which the appeal was taken, which order is in part as follows:

“ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows :

“1. Said Motions to Dismiss be and the same are hereby granted.

“2. Plaintiffs be and are hereby allowed twenty (20) days from the date hereof to file a second amended complaint.

“3. Defendants be and are hereby allowed twenty (20) days from the date of service of any such second amended complaint in which- to plead as they may be advised.”

In Hancock v. Piper, Fla.1966, 186 So.2d 489, our Supreme Court held in a chancery case that an order which dismissed a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, but which granted plaintiffs’ leave to file an amended complaint was an “interlocutory order” and was not a “final decree.”

In Hancock, the Supreme Court said:

“The Supreme Court of the United States in Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., 356 U.S. 335, 78 S.Ct. 764, 766, 2 L.Ed. 806, held where an order dismisses a complaint but allows the plaintiff time to file an amended complaint is interlocutory in nature and not a final judgment. Among other things the court said

“ ‘The undesirability of useless delays in litigation is more than offset by the hazards of confusion or misunderstanding as to the time for appeal.’ ”

Also in Hancock, the Supreme Court disapproved of the majority opinion in Womack v. Goldberg, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 758, stating:

“ * * * that an order dismissing a cause but granting additional time in which to file an amended complaint is nothing more than an interlocutory order and that the court still has control of the litigation.”

The appeal filed in this cause is sua sponte dismissed.

ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.

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