Weiss v. Daytona Grand, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weiss v. Daytona Grand, Inc.

197 So. 3d 1139, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9671, 2016 WL 3458416

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 2016

Docket5D15-1923

StatusPublished

This text of 197 So. 3d 1139 (Weiss v. Daytona Grand, Inc.) 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

Weiss v. Daytona Grand, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1139, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9671, 2016 WL 3458416 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Miles Weiss appeals the order entered by the trial court denying his motion to intervene and issuing a temporary injunction in favor of Daytona Grand, Inc. Although filed as an appeal of a non-final order, we sua sponte have reviewed this case as a final appeal, in that the denial of a motion to intervene is a final appealable order. See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So.3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). 1 Determining that no abuse of discretion by the trial court has been shown, we affirm the denial of the motion to intervene. In light of that determination, Weiss lacks standing to challenge the temporary injunction order. See Mkt. Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So.3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

. The appendices filed by the parties provided the court with an adequate basis upon which to decide the case and, therefore, the court did not order a record to be transmitted.

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

PER CURIAM.

Miles Weiss appeals the order entered by the trial court denying his motion to intervene and issuing a temporary injunction in favor of Daytona Grand, Inc. Although filed as an appeal of a non-final order, we sua sponte have reviewed this case as a final appeal, in that the denial of a motion to intervene is a final appealable order. See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So.3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). 1 Determining that no abuse of discretion by the trial court has been shown, we affirm the denial of the motion to intervene. In light of that determination, Weiss lacks standing to challenge the temporary injunction order. See Mkt. Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So.3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

. The appendices filed by the parties provided the court with an adequate basis upon which to decide the case and, therefore, the court did not order a record to be transmitted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 1139, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9671, 2016 WL 3458416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiss-v-daytona-grand-inc-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack