PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA WALKER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Palm Beach Newspapers appealed a partial summary judgment on comparative negligence, arguing it was a final appealable order. The court held that the partial summary judgment was not final or immediately appealable because the comparative negligence claim was interrelated with remaining negligence claims involving the same automobile accident and parties.
The partial summary judgment is not a final appealable order because the comparative negligence claim is legally interrelated with the remaining negligence claim, involves the same transaction (the automobile accident), and involves the same parties remaining in the lawsuit.
[1] Piecemeal appeals are not permitted where claims are legally interrelated, involve the same transaction, and the same parties remain in the lawsuit.
[2] A partial summary judgment is not a final appealable order when interrelated claims involving the same transaction and parties remain in the suit.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Piecemeal appeals should not be permitted where the claims are legally interrelated, involve the same transaction, and where the same parties remain in the lawsuit.”
Establishes the general principle that prevents piecemeal appeals of interrelated claims from the same transaction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile accident gave rise to multiple interrelated claims including negligence and comparative negligence. The trial court granted plaintiffs a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals an order granting the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment on issues of comparative negligence. The appellant contends that the appeal is from a final order. Piecemeal appeals should not be permitted where the claims are legally interrelated, involve the same transaction, and where the same parties remain in the lawsuit. Kirkland By and Through Kirkland v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 489 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1986). In this instance, the comparative negligence claim is interrelated with the negligence claim. The same transaction—an automobile accident—is involved, in all counts, and the same parties remain in the suit.
The court in Kirkland restated the criteria used in Szewczyk v. BayShore Properties, 456 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), for determining whether a partial summary judgment is a final appealable order:
(1) Could the cause of action disposed of by the partial summary judgment be maintained independently of other remaining causes of action? (2) Were one or more parties removed from the action when the partial final summary judgment was entered? (3) Are the counts separately disposed of based on the same or different facts?
489 So. 2d at 801.
A final order, dismissing less than all of several interrelated claims which involve the same transaction and parties, is not appealable where there is any interrelated claim involving the same transaction and parties remaining in the suit. S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974); Odham v. Mouat, 484 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Rule 9.110(k), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, states that partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case. However, Rule 9.110(k) does not make all partial judgments immediately appealable, nor does it expand in any way the class of orders immediately appealable. Stein v. Hospital Corporation of America, 481 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Here, we conclude that the partial summary judgment is not a final appealable order. The order is also not appealable as a non-final order. It does not fit under any of the categories set out in Rule 9.130 for review of non-final orders.
The appellee’s motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Odham v. David Mouat, M.D., 484 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Szewczyk v. Bayshore Props., 456 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Stein v. Hosp. Corp. OF Am., 481 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Kirkland v. State, 489 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)