STEVEN CASPER AND JUDITH CASPER, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALAN BESHANY, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1977-11-09
No. 77-1029
ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
351 So. 2d 1110 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1977) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In an action formerly cognizable at law the defendants seek review by interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. We dismiss the appeal because it does not qualify as an interlocutory appeal under Fla.App. Rule 4.2. Neither may we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari because interlocutory orders in cases previously cognizable at law are reviewable by certiorari only when it clearly appears there is no full, adequate and complete remedy available by appeal after final judgment. Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 350 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed October 18, 1977).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Leone v. Town OF Palm Beach, 361 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
    …appeal the trial court’s order striking the prayer for punitive damages in two counts of plaintiff’s three count complaint. As there is no basis for treating this as an interlocutory appeal under F.A.R. 4.2, we dismiss the appeal. Casper v. Beshany, 351 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA), Opinion issued November 9, 1977; Longo v. Collins, 106 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Furthermore, we will not treat the interlocutory appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari because “interlocutory orders in cases previously cogn…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw