Zimmerman v. Cade

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zimmerman v. Cade

48 So. 3d 1020, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18352, 2010 WL 4909625

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 2010

DocketNo. 1D10-5446

StatusPublished

This text of 48 So. 3d 1020 (Zimmerman v. Cade) 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

Zimmerman v. Cade, 48 So. 3d 1020, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18352, 2010 WL 4909625 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to the Court’s order of October 20, 2010, the Court has determined that the order on appeal/cross-appeal, is not a final order. To the extent that the lower tribunal reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement to and amount of dividends paid or declared on the rescinded shares of Cade Enterprises stock, the order does not represent a conclusion to its judicial labor in this matter and is therefore not an appeal-able final order. See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992); see also Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Godshall, 851 So.2d at 879, 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (limiting McGum to orders that otherwise appear to be ordinary money judgments except for an improper reservation of jurisdiction to consider prejudgment interest). Accordingly, the appeal and cross-appeal are hereby dismissed.

BENTON, C.J., KAHN, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to the Court’s order of October 20, 2010, the Court has determined that the order on appeal/cross-appeal, is not a final order. To the extent that the lower tribunal reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement to and amount of dividends paid or declared on the rescinded shares of Cade Enterprises stock, the order does not represent a conclusion to its judicial labor in this matter and is therefore not an appeal-able final order. See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992); see also Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Godshall, 851 So.2d at 879, 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (limiting McGum to orders that otherwise appear to be ordinary money judgments except for an improper reservation of jurisdiction to consider prejudgment interest). Accordingly, the appeal and cross-appeal are hereby dismissed.

BENTON, C.J., KAHN, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 So. 3d 1020, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18352, 2010 WL 4909625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-cade-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack