THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CECIL CARSWELL, 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 dismissed an appeal because the notice of appeal was directed to non-appealable orders, rather than the final judgment. The appellant sought to amend the notice of appeal to correct this error, but the court found it lacked jurisdiction.
No, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from non-appealable orders. The notice of appeal must be directed to an appealable order or judgment.
“The orders to which the notice of appeal herein is directed are not appealable.”
Establishes the primary reason for dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order denying its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The appellant la…
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 Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to order of the court entered October 2, 1964, appellant has filed a “Petition for Rehearing” in which it is asserted that the notice of appeal herein was inadvertently directed to an order denying “Appellant’s Motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or for a New Trial” entered March 18, 1964, rather than to the “Final Judgment” entered January 29, 1964; that appellant intended to sue out an appeal from said final judgment; that appellee apparently understood this to be the case; that both parties have filed briefs in which the matter has not been raised; and that no party would be prejudiced if the appeal should be recognized and heard by the court.
The orders to which the notice of appeal herein is directed are not appealable. It is apparent, therefore, that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the same must be and it is hereby dismissed. See Oxford v. Polk Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 147 So.2d 603 (Fla.App.); Huntley Bros., Inc. v. Huntley, 143 So.2d 330 (Fla.App.); Central National Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Piotrowski, 143 So.2d 103 (Fla.App.); Kaemmerlen v. Shannon, 119 So.2d 315 (Fla.App.); Means v. Douglas, 110 So.2d 88 (Fla.); Finley v. Finley, 103 So.2d 191 (Fla.); Haley v. Milam, 100 So.2d 643 (Fla.).
STURGIS, Chief Judge, and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 178 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1965)…[*582] PAUL D. BARNS, Justice (Ret). Upon petition for certiorari to review Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Cramer, Fla.App., 171 So. 2d 220, certified by the District Court as presenting a question of great public interest, the writ is granted and the decision is quashed. The petitioner-insurer was a defendant to an action based on an insurance policy indemnifying the respondent-plaint…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Means v. Douglas, 110 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Williams v. Levine, 103 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1958)
- Kaemmerlen v. Shannon, 119 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Leavstrom v. Muston, 119 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Oxford v. Polk Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Lakeland, 147 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Finley v. Coralee Russell Finley, 103 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1958)
- Huntley Bros., Inc. v. Huntley, 143 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Charlcie M. Haley v. Arthur W. Milam cum testamento annexo of the Last Will and Testament and Codicil annexed of Lorena Braddie Haley, 100 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)