Thompson v. Thompson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thompson v. Thompson

635 So. 2d 1064, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3927, 1994 WL 156704

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1994

DocketNo. 94-740

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 635 So. 2d 1064 (Thompson v. Thompson) 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

Thompson v. Thompson, 635 So. 2d 1064, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3927, 1994 WL 156704 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari Richard F. Thompson seeks review of a non-final order denying his motion to dismiss the former wife’s “Motion to Amend Rehabilitative Alimony.” The latter was construed by the lower court to be a petition for modification of the final judgment of dissolution. He contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction. We deny the petition.

A non-final order is reviewable by certiorari only in limited circumstances. “The order must depart from the essential requirements of law and thus cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.” Martinr-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987). Although petitioner makes the conclusory statement that there is no adequate remedy by appeal, he has made no argument nor has he cited any authority that would support that claim.

PETITION DENIED.

W. SHARP, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari Richard F. Thompson seeks review of a non-final order denying his motion to dismiss the former wife’s “Motion to Amend Rehabilitative Alimony.” The latter was construed by the lower court to be a petition for modification of the final judgment of dissolution. He contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction. We deny the petition.

A non-final order is reviewable by certiorari only in limited circumstances. “The order must depart from the essential requirements of law and thus cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.” Martinr-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987). Although petitioner makes the conclusory statement that there is no adequate remedy by appeal, he has made no argument nor has he cited any authority that would support that claim.

PETITION DENIED.

W. SHARP, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 So. 2d 1064, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3927, 1994 WL 156704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-thompson-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack