Tweed v. Bowden

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tweed v. Bowden

840 So. 2d 1094, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2399, 2003 WL 554198

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 28, 2003·No. No. 1D02-4599·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated January 13, 2002, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, Order of Dismissal, dated October 20, 2002, is neither a final appealable order nor an appealable partial final order where an interrelated claim for mandamus is pending below where such claim was dismissed without prejudice to amend. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99-100 (Fla.1974); Augustin v. Blount, 573 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Fla.RApp. P. 9.110(k), (m).

DISMISSED.

ALLEN, C.J., BENTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated January 13, 2002, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, Order of Dismissal, dated October 20, 2002, is neither a final appealable order nor an appealable partial final order where an interrelated claim for mandamus is pending below where such claim was dismissed without prejudice to amend. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99-100 (Fla.1974); Augustin v. Blount, 573 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Fla.RApp. P. 9.110(k), (m).

DISMISSED.

ALLEN, C.J., BENTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Tweed v. Bowden, 840 So. 2d 1094, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2399, 2003 WL 554198 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

840 So. 2d 1094 (Tweed v. Bowden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related