Interlocutory Review

344 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc.
  605 So. 2d 850· Fla.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 195×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a general contractor who procures workers' compensation coverage for an independent contractor by deducting premiums from wages obtains immunity from civil suit under Florida's Workers' Compensation Act. The Court also rejected prohibition as a
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. SAN Perdido Ass'n, Inc.
  104 So. 3d 344· Fla.· 2012-11-15 ·cited 174×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts regarding whether Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, a state-created entity, could seek interlocutory review of an order denying its claim of immunity from bad faith insurance litigation. The Court held tha
• Giles v. Garland
  70 Fla. 514· Fla.· 1915-12-15 ·cited 140×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an interlocutory order from the Circuit Court, finding no errors in the lower court's decision. The court ordered the appellants to pay costs to the appellees.
• Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens
  97 So. 2d 693· Fla.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 131×
  This Florida Supreme Court case addresses whether an accident defendant must disclose automobile liability insurance policy limits during discovery. The court holds that policy limits are not proper subjects of discovery under Florida civil procedure rules, as they are irrelevant
• Andreas Keck v. Ashleigh K. Eminisor
  104 So. 3d 359· Fla.· 2012-11-15 ·cited 127×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an employee of a state instrumentality may obtain interlocutory appellate review of a trial court's denial of summary judgment based on a claim of individual immunity under Florida Statute § 768.28(9)(a), where the issue turns on a pure questio
• State v. C.C.
  476 So. 2d 144· Fla.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 125×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the state lacks statutory authority to appeal adverse orders in juvenile delinquency cases, as the Florida Juvenile Justice Act contains no such provision and criminal appeal statutes do not apply to juvenile proceedings. The Court rejected the
• Tucker v. Resha
  648 So. 2d 1187· Fla.· 1994-11-10 ·cited 120×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that orders denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity claims are subject to interlocutory review in Florida courts to the same extent as in federal courts, applying the standard from Mitchell v. Forsyth that such orders are reviewable whe
• Am. Express Warehousing, Ltd. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
  380 F.2d 277· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-05 ·cited 116×
  The dissenting judge believes the appeal should not have been dismissed and that the petition for a writ of mandamus should be considered on its merits.
• Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism AND THE Klan
  777 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-12 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the discovery order did not violate the First Amendment and that the default judgment was a proper sanction for willful noncompliance, but the damages award lacked an adequate record basis.
• Hollis Jones v. State
  477 So. 2d 566· Fla.· 1985-10-17 ·cited 111×
  An appellate court cannot treat an unavailable statutory appeal as a petition for certiorari to provide appellate review when the state has no right to appeal.
• Ass'n of Nat'l Advertisers, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  627 F.2d 1151· D.C. Cir.· 1979-12-27 ·cited 87×
  The court held that a Commissioner can be disqualified for bias in rulemaking only upon a showing of an unalterably closed mind, but the dissenting judge argued for a lower standard of preponderance of evidence for substantial bias.
• The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel
  101 So. 2d 188· Fla. 1st DCA· 1958-03-18 ·cited 87×
  Certiorari is denied because an order denying a motion for summary judgment in a law action is not reviewable by common law certiorari as there is an adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment.
• United States & Special Agent Glenn J. Kulas v. KIS
  658 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 86×
  Compliance with an IRS summons moots an appeal of its enforceability, and taxpayers must meet a heavy burden to prove IRS bad faith or abuse of process.
• Burnsed v. Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co.
  290 So. 2d 13· Fla.· 1974-02-06 ·cited 78×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's determination that Section 357.08, Florida Statutes (requiring railroads to place lighted fusees at highway crossings blocked during darkness) was unconstitutional. The Court held the statute is a valid exercise of the state's
• All States Freight, Inc. v. Modarelli
  196 F.2d 1010· 3d Cir.· 1952-05-08 ·cited 78×
  The court held that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to review a district court's decision on a motion to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• United States v. Allen
  408 F.2d 1287· D.C. Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the appellant's motion for summary reversal must be denied because the merits of the claim do not clearly warrant expedited action and mandamus is not the proper remedy for interlocutory review in this criminal case.
• A. Olinick & Sons v. Dempster Bros., Inc.
  365 F.2d 439· 2d Cir.· 1966-08-08 ·cited 69×
  Appellate courts should not use the extraordinary writ of mandamus to review discretionary district court orders regarding the place of trial, as this power is limited to cases of clear usurpation of judicial authority.
• Dep't OF Educ. v. ROE
  679 So. 2d 756· Fla.· 1996-07-18 ·cited 68×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an order denying a sovereign immunity defense to a state law tort claim is not immediately appealable as an interlocutory order, distinguishing it from the qualified immunity context established in Tucker v. Resha. The Court rejected extending
• Rapp v. Honorable Francis L. VAN Dusen
  350 F.2d 806· 3d Cir.· 1965-08-10 ·cited 67×
  The majority held that the respondent judge erred in denying a recusal request, even without a statutory violation, to avoid the appearance of partiality.
• Bedingfield v. Bedingfield
  417 So. 2d 1047· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-07-21 ·cited 65×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to stay Florida divorce and custody proceedings in favor of parallel Georgia proceedings under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. The court held that Florida must defer to Georgia's prior j
• Fanchon Blake v. City OF LOS Angeles
  595 F.2d 1367· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-02 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, finding that appellants established a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII and that the LAPD failed to demonstrate business necessity for its discriminatory employment practices.
• Doctor's Hosp. OF Hollywood, Inc. v. Hunter W. Madison
  411 So. 2d 190· Fla.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 63×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts on whether an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is appealable. The Court held that such orders are appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) because they determine the issue of liability, and r
• Chicago v. Honorable Michael L. Igoe
  220 F.2d 299· 7th Cir.· 1955-02-16 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district judge's repeated denial of a transfer motion constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting mandamus.
• Davidson v. O'Lone
  752 F.2d 817· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 62×
  The New Jersey Tort Claims Act, which grants broad immunity to state agents, cannot shield them from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Fourteenth Amendment right to personal security. Involuntarily committed individuals retain a federally protected liberty intere
• State v. C.C.
  449 So. 2d 280· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-03-24 ·cited 62×
• Weil v. Investment/Indicators
  647 F.2d 18· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the Fund waived its attorney-client privilege regarding Blue Sky registration advice by disclosing privileged communications, and that the order requiring an undertaking was premature pending further discovery. The court declined to review the class certificat
• Shell v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  135 So. 2d 857· Fla.· 1961-11-29 ·cited 57×
  In this eminent domain proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court held that the State Road Department must disclose expert appraisals, surveys, and other valuation documents to the property owner before trial, rejecting the work product privilege as applied to condemnation cases. The
• State v. G.P.
  476 So. 2d 1272· Fla.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 55×
  The state has no right of appeal from a final juvenile court order because section 39.14, Florida Statutes, providing for appeals in juvenile delinquency cases does not extend to the state.
• Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
  677 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 51×
  The court held that Avondale's antitrust counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations because the alleged tying arrangement's damages were ascertainable at the time the contract was executed, and subsequent events did not constitute new antitrust violations.
• Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Coral Gables v. Lightbourn
  201 So. 2d 568· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-04-20 ·cited 46×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida determined it lacked jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment because the case had been transferred to Dade County, which falls within the Third District Court of Appeal's jurisdiction. The court
• M.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families
  189 So. 3d 134· Fla.· 2016-04-14 ·cited 44×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts regarding the proper method to review post-dependency orders that retain jurisdiction for future modification. The Court held that such orders are non-final and reviewable by certiorari rather than direct appeal,
• Kalmutz v. Kalmutz
  299 So. 2d 30· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-07-26 ·cited 41×
  In this consolidated family law appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reviews a trial court's modification of a special master's report and recommendations in a dissolution of marriage case. The court clarifies that a chancellor may only override a master's findings when th
• Dobrick v. Discovery Cruises, Inc.
  581 So. 2d 645· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-06-19 ·cited 38×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether an order granting a motion for summary judgment constitutes a final appealable order and whether a prematurely filed appeal should be dismissed or allowed to proceed. The court reversed its prior precedent to allow app
• In re United States v. The Attorney Gen.
  565 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1977-10-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district judge's order allowing plaintiffs' counsel to inspect FBI informant files in camera, under a pledge of secrecy, was not an appealable collateral order or a matter of first impression warranting interlocutory review.
• Fla. Nat. Bank Tr. Co. v. Brown
  47 So. 2d 748· Fla.· 1949-07-29 ·cited 37×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision denying foreclosure on a mortgage given by a mother to her daughter for past services rendered. The court held that services rendered without a pre-existing agreement for compensation do not constitute valuable considerati
• Gulf OIL Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Energy
  663 F.2d 296· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while the district court's intervention was initially justified to preserve a record of alleged misconduct, subsequent events reduced the threat to litigants' rights, necessitating vacation of the order.
• Hastings v. Demming
  682 So. 2d 1107· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-07-31 ·cited 34×
  Hastings and American Sign Company appealed a trial court's denial of their motions for summary judgment asserting workers' compensation immunity in a personal injury suit. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) does not confer jurisdiction
• Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
  710 So. 2d 1022· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-05-20 ·cited 33×
  Maris Distributing Company sought certiorari review of a trial court order that separated Maris's breach of contract claim from thirteen collateral claims for trial and stayed discovery on the collateral counts. The First District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding tha
• John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
  807 F.2d 1000· D.C. Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure less stringently in Magnuson-Moss Act cases and by relieving plaintiffs of the individual notice requirement.
• Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Holmes
  352 So. 2d 1233· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-11-29 ·cited 33×
  Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company appeals the trial court's order allowing a plaintiff to join the personal representative of a deceased defendant's estate after the 90-day substitution period expired under Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.260(a)(1). The court held that the
• Professor Ernest F. Dube v. The State Univ. OF NEW York
  900 F.2d 587· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did address the qualified immunity defense, establishing appellate jurisdiction.
• Noyola v. Tex. Dep't OF Human Res.
  846 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-15 ·cited 32×
  Public employees' internal grievances about caseload distribution to their supervisor do not constitute speech on a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment, and thus, officials are entitled to qualified immunity.
• The Navajo Tribe of Indians v. The United States
  624 F.2d 981· Ct. Cl.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that most of the trial judge's rulings were interlocutory and not subject to immediate appellate review, and affirmed the trial judge's decisions on specific exceptions related to fiduciary duties regarding timber sales and treaty fund disbursements.
• Stockinger v. Ulrike A. Zeilberger
  152 So. 3d 71· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-11-19 ·cited 31×
  A non-final order that places claimants on notice of possible dismissal without actually dismissing claims, terminating rights, or imposing sanctions does not inflict irreparable harm sufficient to invoke certiorari jurisdiction where any ultimate injury could be remedied on fina
• Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores
  980 So. 2d 1226· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-05-05 ·cited 31×
  A petition for writ of certiorari challenging an order compelling submission to an independent medical examination must be filed within 30 days of the original order's rendition, and this time period is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by filing a late motion for reconsidera
• Ruiz v. Estelle
  609 F.2d 118· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an award of attorney's fees made pendente lite in a class action is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine if it is subject to reconsideration and the parties have not shown irreparable harm.
• Xerox Corp. v. SCM Corp.
  534 F.2d 1031· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that interlocutory appeals of discovery orders are generally not permitted without specific certification or a showing of manifest abuse of discretion.
• AIR Line Pilots Ass'n v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  750 F.2d 81· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-30 ·cited 29×
  The Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over claims of unreasonably delayed agency action and bias, and the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.
• Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Tropic Enters., Inc.
  966 So. 2d 1· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-04-20 ·cited 28×
  Speedway SuperAmerica sought to assign its commercial lease to Sunoco, but landlord Tropic Enterprises refused consent. The trial court granted summary judgment for Tropic based on an unfettered right to withhold consent under the lease provision. The appellate court reversed, ho
• Ass'n OF Nat'l Advertisers, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  617 F.2d 611· D.C. Cir.· 1979-10-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the challenges to the FTC's special rules and Commission Rule 1.18 were premature and not ripe for judicial review.