Arnold v. Brady
| Decision Date | 06 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 5334,5334 |
| Parties | Zora Mae ARNOLD, Appellant, v. Louis R. BRADY, M.D., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roy Christopher, Mount Dora, for appellant.
Leon H. Handley, of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for appellee.
Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from an order entered in an action at law granting defendant-appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The order appealed from is as follows:
'This cause coming on to be heard upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having heard argument of counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is thereupon, upon consideration thereof,
'CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby granted.'
While the point was not raised, we are of the opinion that the foregoing order is not a 'final' decision, order or judgment, within the provisions of Florida Appellate Rule 3 .2(b), 31 F.S.A. We have no jurisdiction, therefore, to determine the merits of the points on appeal, and the appeal, ex mero motu, is dismissed. See Baker v. Colley, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 473; and Shotkin v. Deehl, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 538.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinellas County v. Woolley
...hereby granted.' This is clearly Not a 'final' decision, order or judgment within the provisions of F.A.R. 3.2(b), 31 F.S.A. Arnold v. Brady, 178 So.2d 732 (D.C.A.Fla.1965). The case is one in equity, and Rule 4.2, subd. a, F.A.R., governing Interlocutory Appeals, states in 'Appeals to dist......
-
Decker v. City of Tucson
...hold, therefore, that the subject 'judgment' is not final and, therefore, is not appealable. 1 Brown v. Mitchell, supra; Arnold v. Brady, Fla.App., 178 So.2d 732 (1965); Saunders v. New Capital for Small Businesses, Inc., 231 Cal.App.2d 324, 41 Cal.Rptr. 703, 705 (1964); Cashion v. Bunn, 14......
-
Shupack v. Allstate Ins. Co., 77-407
...order from which an interlocutory appeal could properly lie. See Harris v. Mosteller, 253 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Arnold v. Brady, 178 So.2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Lyden v. DePiera, 147 So.2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Stone v. Buckley, 119 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Chastain v. Embr......
-
Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors Self-Insurers Fund v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Orlando
...dismissed sua sponte. See Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank and Trust Company, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 152; Arnold v. Brady, Fla.App. 1965, 178 So.2d 732; Chastain v. Embry, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 33; Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d WALDEN, C.J., OWEN, J., and......