Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Miller
| Decision Date | 03 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 88301,88301 |
| Citation | 696 So.2d 340 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly S408 PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. Richard MILLER, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Direct Conflict of Decisions, Hillsboro County, No. 95-03695.
Bonita L. Kneeland of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner.
Stuart C. Markman and Susan H. Freemon of Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., Tampa, for Respondents.
We have for review Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Miller, 674 So.2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), which conflicts with Breakers Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gloger, 646 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
In the instant case, the district court found that it was without jurisdiction to decide whether the trial court erred in denying Pizza Hut's motion for summary judgment on the basis of worker's compensation immunity. The trial court's order specifically stated that there were factual questions on the issue of worker's compensation immunity left for the jury and, consequently, no conclusive determination of nonentitlement to such immunity was made.
In Hastings v. Demming, 694 So.2d 718 (Fla. 1997), we held that an appellate court, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi), does not have jurisdiction to review a non-final order denying a motion for summary judgment asserting worker's compensation immunity unless the order conclusively and finally determines a party's nonentitlement to such immunity. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant case.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc.
...Hastings, 694 So.2d at 720). Accordingly, this Court approved the decision of the district court. See also Pizza Hut of Am., Inc. v. Miller, 696 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla.1997) (holding no jurisdiction where trial court's order specifically stated there were factual questions on the issue of work......
-
Martin Electronics, Inc. v. Glombowski
...in H.C. Hodges Cash & Carry, Inc. v. Walton Dodge Chrysler-Plymouth Jeep & Eagle, 696 So.2d 762 (Fla.1997), and Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Miller, 696 So.2d 340 (Fla.1997). In H.C. Hodges, the supreme court specifically ruled that the district court's determination of appealability based......
-
Wheeled Coach Industries, Inc. v. Annulis, 5D02-3262.
...an order unless that order "conclusively and finally determines a party's nonentitlement to such immunity." Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Miller, 696 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla.1997). After reviewing the order, we conclude that the order finally and conclusively determines that WCI cannot claim wo......
-
Footstar Corp. v. Doe
...by inference. The order must "conclusively and finally determine[ ] a party's nonentitlement to such immunity." Pizza Hut of Am., Inc. v. Miller, 696 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla.1997). The difficulty in this case stems from the state of the pleadings and the facts toward which the motion for summar......