Strazzulla v. Hinson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Strazzulla v. Hinson

113 So. 2d 419, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2611

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 1959

DocketNo. 1108

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 113 So. 2d 419 (Strazzulla v. Hinson) 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

Strazzulla v. Hinson, 113 So. 2d 419, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2611 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

DREW, E. HARRIS, Associate Judge.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order of the trial court in an action at law, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

“This cause coming before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss and on plaintiff’s motion to tax costs for failure of the defendants to appear at the taking of deposition, the matter having been duly considered, the Court will not at this time place any penalty against the defendants for failing to appear to take deposition in that there was a notice, though improper, mailed to opposing counsel, it is thereupon

“Ordered that the motion to dismiss is hereby denied as to count One of the complaint, and granted as to count Two of the complaint, and the plain[420]*420tiff shall have 10 days in which to further plead.”

The Constitution of this State¹ provides for appeals in actions at law from final judgments. The same section of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may provide for review by the district courts of appeal of interlocutory orders or decrees in matters reviewable by the district courts of appeal. The Supreme Court has provided for appeals from interlocutory orders at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person.²

The order appealed from is neither a final judgment at law nor is it an order at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person; hence this court has no jurisdiction of this cause and this appeal is hereby dismissed ex mero motu.

Appeal dismissed.

ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER, J., concur.

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

DREW, E. HARRIS, Associate Judge.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order of the trial court in an action at law, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

“This cause coming before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss and on plaintiff’s motion to tax costs for failure of the defendants to appear at the taking of deposition, the matter having been duly considered, the Court will not at this time place any penalty against the defendants for failing to appear to take deposition in that there was a notice, though improper, mailed to opposing counsel, it is thereupon

“Ordered that the motion to dismiss is hereby denied as to count One of the complaint, and granted as to count Two of the complaint, and the plain[420]*420tiff shall have 10 days in which to further plead.”

The Constitution of this State¹ provides for appeals in actions at law from final judgments. The same section of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may provide for review by the district courts of appeal of interlocutory orders or decrees in matters reviewable by the district courts of appeal. The Supreme Court has provided for appeals from interlocutory orders at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person.²

The order appealed from is neither a final judgment at law nor is it an order at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person; hence this court has no jurisdiction of this cause and this appeal is hereby dismissed ex mero motu.

Appeal dismissed.

ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 2d 419, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strazzulla-v-hinson-fladistctapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack