LAWRENCE STUFFLEBEAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that an order granting partial summary judgment is not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) if it does not determine liability in favor of the party seeking affirmative relief.
Plaintiff appealed an order granting partial summary judgment, which held that a prior jury verdict determined the parties' negligence and comparative…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Iv) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-final appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment holding that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the jury verdict in another case is determinative of the negligence and comparative negligence of the parties in this case.
Plaintiff argues that this order is appeal-able because it determines “the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief,” and is therefore appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). Defendant appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this order was not “in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief.” We agree.
The jury verdict in the other case found plaintiff 65% at fault in causing the accident. Plaintiff opposed the application of collateral estoppel. This order, therefore, was not in favor of plaintiff, who is the only party seeking affirmative relief in this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal.1
DELL, C.J., and HERSEY and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . This is not a situation in which we can relinquish jurisdiction for the trial court to enter a final judgment, because other claims are still pending in the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Echeverri, 736 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…llenges the Fabre ruling below, we dismiss the appeal as unauthorizedly taken from an interlocutory order which is not subject to review under any of the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See Stufflebean v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 645 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); R D & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Affirmed in part, dismissed in part. . We note that, in any case, a claim for indemnity does not lie under these circumstances as a matter of law. See Hou…