Sleepy Hollow, Inc. v. City of Archer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sleepy Hollow, Inc. v. City of Archer

10 So. 3d 1130, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4175, 2009 WL 1175321

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 2009

Docket1D09-0279

StatusPublished

This text of 10 So. 3d 1130 (Sleepy Hollow, Inc. v. City of Archer) 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

Sleepy Hollow, Inc. v. City of Archer, 10 So. 3d 1130, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4175, 2009 WL 1175321 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of February 9, 2009, the Court has determined that Count II of the Amended Complaint, seeking damages for inverse condemnation, and Count I, seeking declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the City of Archer Land Use Ordinance, are inextricably intertwined. Therefore, the November 26, 2008, Partial Summary Judgment, which addresses only Count II, does not constitute a partial final judgment subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k). Furthermore, because the lower tribunal’s November 25, 2008, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, did so without prejudice to file an amended complaint, it is not a final order. See Augustin v. Blount, 573 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed as premature.

ALLEN, DAVIS, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of February 9, 2009, the Court has determined that Count II of the Amended Complaint, seeking damages for inverse condemnation, and Count I, seeking declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the City of Archer Land Use Ordinance, are inextricably intertwined. Therefore, the November 26, 2008, Partial Summary Judgment, which addresses only Count II, does not constitute a partial final judgment subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k). Furthermore, because the lower tribunal’s November 25, 2008, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, did so without prejudice to file an amended complaint, it is not a final order. See Augustin v. Blount, 573 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed as premature.

ALLEN, DAVIS, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 So. 3d 1130, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4175, 2009 WL 1175321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sleepy-hollow-inc-v-city-of-archer-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack