Smith v. Glisson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Glisson

468 So. 2d 394, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1026, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13603

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1603

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 468 So. 2d 394 (Smith v. Glisson) 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

Smith v. Glisson, 468 So. 2d 394, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1026, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13603 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by the third-party counter-defendants below seeks review of an order striking their defense of collateral estoppel arising out of the verdict in an earlier trial in the case and setting the previously severed third-party counterclaim against them for a subsequent trial. The order is obviously neither a final judgment which would support a plenary appeal pursuant to Fla. R.App.P. 9.110 nor one of the non-final orders subject to review under Fla.R.App. 9.130. Moreover, since the alleged error may be considered on a subsequent appeal from an adverse final judgment if one is entered against the present appellants, it is inappropriate to treat this proceeding as a petition for certiorari. See Harte v. Palm Beach Biltmore Condominium Ass’n, 436 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). For these reasons, the court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by the third-party counter-defendants below seeks review of an order striking their defense of collateral estoppel arising out of the verdict in an earlier trial in the case and setting the previously severed third-party counterclaim against them for a subsequent trial. The order is obviously neither a final judgment which would support a plenary appeal pursuant to Fla. R.App.P. 9.110 nor one of the non-final orders subject to review under Fla.R.App. 9.130. Moreover, since the alleged error may be considered on a subsequent appeal from an adverse final judgment if one is entered against the present appellants, it is inappropriate to treat this proceeding as a petition for certiorari. See Harte v. Palm Beach Biltmore Condominium Ass’n, 436 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). For these reasons, the court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 So. 2d 394, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1026, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-glisson-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack