A & M Painting v. Jennings, 598 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
A & M Painting v. Jennings, 598 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Custom Homes by Triumph, LLC v. Sverdlow, Sverdlow (fladistctapp, 2025-08-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Custom Homes by Triumph, LLC v. Sverdlow, Sverdlow
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Mgmt., Inc., 828 So. 2d 1069, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("A petition for writ of certiorari is the appropriate vehicle to seek review of an order granting a motion to vacate a lien."); A & M Painting v. Jennings, 598 So. 2d 335, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (treating the portion of the appeal challenging an order granting a motion to discharge a lien as a petition for writ of certiorari and denying the petition).
cited Cited "see" Dracon Const., Inc. v. FACILITY CONST. MANAGEMENT, INC.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See A & M Painting v. Jennings, 598 So.2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
cited Cited "see" Lifred v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lifhred, 598 So.2d at 335 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ebano-Soberon, Inc. v. Cury Group, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., A & M Painting v. Jennings, 598 So.2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
A & M PAINTING
v.
Milton S. JENNINGS
No. 91-3359.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jun 3, 1992.
598 So. 2d 335
1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5834
1992 WL 115796
Robert A. Arabian of Robert D. Lettman, P.A., Tamarac, for appellant., Ira Libanoff of Leiby, Ferencik, Libanoff and Brandt, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
Farmer, Gunther, Letts.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a three count complaint filed by appellee Jennings against appellant A & M Painting, Inc. Count I of the complaint was drafted together with a summons to show cause why a lien filed by A & M against Jennings should not be discharged. See § 713.21(4), Fla.Stat. (1991). A & M Painting, Inc. appeals two non-final orders, one denying its motion to quash process, and the second from an order granting Jennings’ motion to discharge the lien. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to quash. We find also that the second order at issue here is not reviewable as a non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. We treat this portion of the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In so doing, we conclude that A & M failed to demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting Jennings’ motion to discharge the lien. Accordingly, the petition for common law cer-tiorari is denied.

NON-FINAL APPEAL AFFIRMED; PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED.

LETTS, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.