CONSTANCE BUCHANAN, AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF JOHN DOE, A FICTITIOUS NAME FOR A MINOR
v.
CROSSROADS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, INC., A FLORIDA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, CAMPUS CRUSADE FOR CHRIST, INC., AND CHRISTOPHER ROBERT BACCA
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.
An order dismissing one count of a complaint is not an appealable partial final judgment when other counts against the same parties remain and those counts arise from the same conduct.
[1] An order granting partial final judgment is not appealable when there is a factual overlap between the resolved claims and pending claims.
[2] An appeal from an order dismissing a count of a complaint is authorized only when the dismissed count arises from a separate and distinct transaction independent of other…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An order is not an appealable partial final order where there is a factual overlap between the pending claims and the claims resolved by the order.”
Citing Jensen v. Whetstine, establishing the requirement for appellability of partial judgments
A guardian sued on behalf of a minor against a church, campus ministry organization, and individual, asserting multiple counts. The trial court grante…
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 Interrelated Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
(“An order is not an appealable partial final order where there is a factual overlap between the pending claims and the claims resolved by the order.”) Cf. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k). “An appeal from an order dismissing a count of a complaint, where other counts against the same parties remain, is authorized only when the dismissed count arises from a separate and distinct transaction independent of the other pending, pleaded claims.” Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 654 So. 2d 237, 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., LLC, 51 So. 3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant’s complaint includes two pending counts alleging claims against the same defendant for damages stemming from the same conduct as Count VIII. Therefore, the claims are interrelated and the order on Count VIII is not independently appealable as a partial final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k).
The appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
ROWE, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Colon v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 654 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., L.L.C., 51 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)