Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

405 So. 2d 311

Docket No. 81-1837.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Collier

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Zipporah COLLIER, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 4, 1981.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1981-11-04

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Defendant's motion for final summary judgment is hereby granted that the plaintiff take nothing by the suit and go hence without day”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including 743 So. 2d 1215 - Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 817 So. 2d 1057 - Hoffman v. Hall

“len[t] the necessary unequivocal declaration of finality that will support an appeal”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including 743 So. 2d 1215 - Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 817 So. 2d 1057 - Hoffman v. Hall

Relies on Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co. · 99 So. 2d 719 - Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels · Baker v. Colley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-11-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2014

8 state decisions

301981199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*312 James B. Denman of Bunnell & Denman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

¶2Mark J. Mintz of Ress, Gomez, Rosenberg & Howland, P.A., North Miami, for appellee.

¶3

ON MOTION TO REMAND FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

¶4LETTS, Chief Judge.

¶5The appellant's motion to remand for entry of a Final Declaratory Judgment is denied.

¶6This Court is of the opinion that the Summary Judgment here appealed is in fact final because it contains "magic words demonstrating finality." See Sloman v. Florida Power & Light Co.,382 So.2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The totality of the words set forth in the instant Summary Judgment which lead us to that conclusion are as follows:

Defendant's motion for final summary judgment is hereby granted ... that the plaintiff take nothing by this suit and ... go hence without day.

¶7In moving for a remand in filing a notice of intent to rely, both parties appear to doubt the finality of the instant judgment and cite Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc.,99 So.2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958) and Rizzuto v. DiPaolo III,357 So.2d 490 (Fla.2d DCA 1978) as support. However, both these last two cited cases merely intoned that the motion for summary judgment was granted and neither contained additional language.

¶8By contrast we base our conclusion here on the Supreme Court case of Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co.,135 So. 561 (Fla. 1931) and Baker v. Colley,104 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) which both indicate that the use of additional language such as "the plaintiff take nothing by [this] suit ... and go hence without day" lends the necessary unequivocal declaration of finality that will support an appeal.

¶9MOTION DENIED.

¶10MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

/405/so2d/311 · .json · Public domain