From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arnold v. Brady

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 6, 1965
178 So. 2d 732 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

Opinion

No. 5334.

October 6, 1965.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Frank A. Smith, J.

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.

ALLEN, C.J., SMITH, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Arnold v. Brady

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 6, 1965
178 So. 2d 732 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)
Case details for

Arnold v. Brady

Case Details

Full title:ZORA MAE ARNOLD, APPELLANT, v. LOUIS R. BRADY, M.D., APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 6, 1965

Citations

178 So. 2d 732 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

Citing Cases

Shupack v. Allstate Insurance Co.

It does not constitute a final judgment, nor is it an order from which an interlocutory appeal could properly…

Rizzuto v. DiPaolo

Likewise, the case is not one which formerly would have been cognizable in equity so the order is not subject…