Thor Guard, Inc. v. City of Boca Raton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thor Guard, Inc. v. City of Boca Raton

100 So. 3d 1285, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20439, 2012 WL 5933016

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 28, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-2339

StatusPublished

This text of 100 So. 3d 1285 (Thor Guard, Inc. v. City of Boca Raton) 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

Thor Guard, Inc. v. City of Boca Raton, 100 So. 3d 1285, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20439, 2012 WL 5933016 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without discussion the defendant supplier’s appeal of the final summary judgment in the co-defendant City’s favor. We have no jurisdiction to consider the denial of the supplier’s motion for summary judgment based on the same arguments which the City raised in its motion for summary judgment; therefore, we cannot address the merits of the supplier’s claim at this time. See Am. Nat’l Title & Escrow of Fla., Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co., 748 So.2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“We have no jurisdiction of orders denying motions for summary judgment and therefore cannot address the merits of their claim.”).

Affirmed.

MAY, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without discussion the defendant supplier’s appeal of the final summary judgment in the co-defendant City’s favor. We have no jurisdiction to consider the denial of the supplier’s motion for summary judgment based on the same arguments which the City raised in its motion for summary judgment; therefore, we cannot address the merits of the supplier’s claim at this time. See Am. Nat’l Title & Escrow of Fla., Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co., 748 So.2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“We have no jurisdiction of orders denying motions for summary judgment and therefore cannot address the merits of their claim.”).

Affirmed.

MAY, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 3d 1285, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20439, 2012 WL 5933016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thor-guard-inc-v-city-of-boca-raton-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack