Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cole v. Posadagreen1 sentence2022See Cole, 555 So. 2d at 368 (dismissing an appeal of a non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) because “[t]he question before the trial court was not whether the court had the jurisdiction or power to bind the appellants to its ultimate decision”). | 1 | 1 |
Republic Federal Bank, N.A. v. Doylegreen1 sentence2011We also recognize that in Republic Federal Bank, N.A. v. Doyle, 19 So.3d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), this Court denied, not dismissed, a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash an order continuing a foreclosure sale. | 1 | 1 |
Drago v. Dragogreen1 sentence2011Corp. of Am., L.P. v. Frankhouse, 551 So.2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (reversing post-judgment order postponing foreclosure sale finding an abuse of discretion, and remanding with instructions to schedule judicial sale); see also Drago v. Drago, 895 So.2d 529, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (re-designating a petition for writ of certiorari concerning an order modifying visitation rights as reviewable as a non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)). | 1 | 1 |
Berman v. Bermangreen1 sentence1997See Berman v. Berman, 591 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Profile Investments, Inc. v. DELTA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.
green
1 sentence2024“When we are ‘analyzing whether we have jurisdiction to review a non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C) – i.e., whether the nonfinal order has made the requisite determination so as to trigger the rule's applicability – this Court looks to the four corners of the challenged order, not to the arguments made in the underlying motion.’” Id. (quoting Truist Bank v. De Posada, 307 So. 3d 824 , 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rodriguez v. Villavicencio Guerra
green
1 sentence2019Here, as in Rodriguez v. Guerra, 254 So. 3d 521 , 521 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), we acknowledge both forms of review of such orders and conclude that the result “would have been the same had appellant filed a petition for certiorari relief rather than an appeal.” 2 • LB Judgment Holdings, LLC v. Boschetti, Case No. 3D18-1190. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Keck v. Eminisor
green
1 sentence2012In a related case, Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So.3d 359 (Fla.2012), we decided that rule 9.130 should be amended to allow for appeal of the non-final order claim of immunity for an individual defendant under section 728.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. of America v. Frankhouse
green
1 sentence2011Corp. of Am., L.P. v. Frankhouse, 551 So.2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (reversing post-judgment order postponing foreclosure sale finding an abuse of discretion, and remanding with instructions to schedule judicial sale); see also Drago v. Drago, 895 So.2d 529, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (re-designating a petition for writ of certiorari concerning an order modifying visitation rights as reviewable as a non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |