Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 So. 2d 752

Lalow v. Codomo

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 13, 1956

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1956-07-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“contemplates more than a pretrial sifting of the issues.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Young

Relies on Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works · Wieczorek v. Williams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1956-07-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1980

5 state decisions

201956196019701980decided

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 →

ROBERTS, Justice.

¶1This is an appeal from a judgment designated an “amended partial summary judgment” entered by the trial judge for the avowed purpose of providing the losing party with an opportunity to appeal from the “partial summary judgment” previously entered and as to which the appeal time had expired. The appellee has filed a motion to quash the appeal on the ground that the trial judge is without authority to extend, either directly or indirectly, the time for filing a notice of appeal. The contention is sound and must be sustained. Wieczorek v. Williams, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 262.

¶2No opinion is expressed as to the propriety of entering a so-called “partial summary judgment” on one of the two separate and distinct claims incorporated in the complaint, in the absence of a rule of civil procedure in this state similar to Rule 54 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., nor as to whether Rule 1.36 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., providing for the entry of summary judgment upon “all or any part” of a claim, contemplates more than a pretrial sifting of the issues. Cf. Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works, 7 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 214; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 1st Ed. 1938, 3175.

¶3The motion of the appellee to quash the appeal is granted, and the appeal is quashed.

¶4It is so ordered.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
/88/so2d/752 · .json · Public domain