REXFORD TWEED, APPELLANT,
v.
TONI BOWDEN, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., SECRETARY, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2003-02-28
No. 1D02-4599
ALLEN, C.J., BENTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
840 So. 2d 1094 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated January 13, 2002, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, Order of Dismissal, dated October 20, 2002, is neither a final appealable order nor an appealable partial final order where an interrelated claim for mandamus is pending below where such claim was dismissed without prejudice to amend. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99-100 (Fla.1974); Augustin v. Blount, 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Fla.RApp. P. 9.110(k), (m).

DISMISSED.

ALLEN, C.J., BENTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • D'Asaro v. Fla. Dep't OF Env't Prot., 846 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
    …The order on appeal is not a final appealable order because it merely dismissed appellants’ complaint without prejudice to their right to file an amended complaint, which did not bring an end to the judicial labor of the cause. See Tweed v. Bowden, 840 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Augustin v. Blount, Inc., 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The appellees’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and for Determination of Inapplicability of Notice Provision, filed on April 29, 2003 is DENIED. BARFIELD, WOLF and DAVI…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw