FLORIDA LIVING FOR THE RETIRED, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RETIREMENT HOTEL ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1964-07-15
No. 64-305
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
167 So. 2d 83 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a full appeal cannot be taken from interlocutory orders in chancery, and an order denying a petition for rehearing is not appealable.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants attempted a full appeal from two orders: one denying their motions and granting summary judgment, and another denying their petition for re…

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.

Topics
Appealable Order Final Order Petition For Rehearing Interlocutory Orders

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.

*84On Petition for Rehearing

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed notice of a full appeal from two orders of the Circuit Court of Dade County in a chancery proceeding. The first order denied, (a) “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Decree * * * ”, (b) “Plaintiffs’ Motion for ‘Decree on Bill and Answer’ * * * ”, (c) “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike * * * The second order denied the Plaintiffs’ Petition for Rehearing. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds that (1) a full appeal had been taken from interlocutory orders contrary to Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., (2) the notice of appeal failed to designate the appeal as interlocutory as required by Rule 4.2, supra and (3) appellants had failed to observe the procedural requirements of Rule 4.2, supra as to the filing of appellants’ brief and the preparation of the record on appeal. After notice and hearing, this court granted appel-lees’ motion and dismissed the appeal. Both parties have now moved for a clarification of this court’s decision dismissing the appeal. . In view of the procedural status of this cause in the trial court, we deem the request for clarification to be well taken.

This court concluded as a basis for dismissal of the appeal that appellants had attempted a full appeal from interlocutory orders in chancery. Such orders are reviewable only by virtue of Rule 4.2, supra. This rule contemplates the speedy review of interlocutory orders so as not to unduly interrupt or delay the orderly progress and final determination of the cause in the trial court. The time provisions of Rule 4.2, supra are designed to achieve this purpose.

The order denying appellants’ various motions and granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment is not a final order and therefore would not support the full appeal attempted by appellants. See Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 719. The judicial labor obviously is not at end in this cause.

The order denying appellants’ petition for rehearing in the trial court is not an appealable order. See Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 603. The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants’ petition for rehearing directed to this court’s order of dismissal dated July 15, 1964 has been considered and is denied.

Other
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed notice of a full appeal from two orders of the Circuit Court of Dade County in a chancery proceeding. The first order denied, (a) “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Decree * * * ”, (b) “Plaintiffs’ Motion for ‘Decree on Bill and Answer’ * * * ”, (c) “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike * * * The second order denied the Plaintiffs’ Petition for Rehearing. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds that (1) a full appeal had been taken from interlocutory orders contrary to Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., (2) the notice of appeal failed to designate the appeal as interlocutory as required by Rule 4.2, supra and (3) appellants had failed to observe the procedural requirements of Rule 4.2, supra as to the filing of appellants’ brief and the preparation of the record on appeal. After notice and hearing, this court granted appel-lees’ motion and dismissed the appeal. Both parties have now moved for a clarification of this court’s decision dismissing the appeal. . In view of the procedural status of this cause in the trial court, we deem the request for clarification to be well taken.

This court concluded as a basis for dismissal of the appeal that appellants had attempted a full appeal from interlocutory orders in chancery. Such orders are reviewable only by virtue of Rule 4.2, supra. This rule contemplates the speedy review of interlocutory orders so as not to unduly interrupt or delay the orderly progress and final determination of the cause in the trial court. The time provisions of Rule 4.2, supra are designed to achieve this purpose.

The order denying appellants’ various motions and granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment is not a final order and therefore would not support the full appeal attempted by appellants. See Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 719. The judicial labor obviously is not at end in this cause.

The order denying appellants’ petition for rehearing in the trial court is not an appealable order. See Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 603. The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants’ petition for rehearing directed to this court’s order of dismissal dated July 15, 1964 has been considered and is denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Tr. Co., 208 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
    …s County v. Woolley, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 217; Stone v. Buckley, Fla.App.1960, 119 So. 2d 298; Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., Fla. App.1958, 99 So. 2d 719; Florida Living for the Retired, Inc. v. Retirement Hotel Associates, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 83. This court, however, will treat the appeal as an interlocutory appeal under F.A.R. 4.2. See Crepaldi v. Wagner, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 759, 760, and Watson v. City of Hallandale, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 195. With regard to the substantive quest…
  • Carter v. State, 242 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
    …s under Criminal Procedure Rule # 1 are delineated by the Florida Appellate Rules. An order denying appellant’s petition for rehearing is not an appealable order. See Florida Living for the Retired, Inc. v. Retirement Hotel Associates, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 83; Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings & Loan Association of Lakeland, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So. 2d 603, and cases cited therein.” Since appellee has not raised the insufficiency of the notice of appeal nor claimed prejudice as a result thereof, we will igno…
  • Lett v. State, 195 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
    …ts under Criminal Procedure Rule #1 are delineated by the Florida Appellate Rules. An order denying appellant’s petition for rehearing is not an appealable order. See Florida Living for the Retired, Inc. v. Retirement Hotel Associates, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 83; Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings & Loan Association of Lakeland, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 603, and cases cited therein. Therefore appellant’s appeal from an order denying his motion for rehearing is dismissed. SHANNON, A. C. J., and LILES, J., conc…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw