Wellborn v. Cannon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wellborn v. Cannon

879 So. 2d 647, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8869, 2004 WL 1402112

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 24, 2004·No. No. 1D04-1867·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellants’ response to the Court’s order of May 11, 2004, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not final. Specifically, because the order reserves jurisdiction to reconsider its decision not to establish a period for the filing of claims, the judicial labor has not been brought to a close and the order is not final. See generally McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992) (holding that a reservation to consider an issue that is inherent in the case interferes with the finality of an order). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ„ Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellants’ response to the Court’s order of May 11, 2004, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not final. Specifically, because the order reserves jurisdiction to reconsider its decision not to establish a period for the filing of claims, the judicial labor has not been brought to a close and the order is not final. See generally McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992) (holding that a reservation to consider an issue that is inherent in the case interferes with the finality of an order). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ„ Concur.

Wellborn v. Cannon, 879 So. 2d 647, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8869, 2004 WL 1402112 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

879 So. 2d 647 (Wellborn v. Cannon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related