Legal Opinion

Thomson v. Petherbridge

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 9, 1981No. ZZ-423PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

This court sua sponte notes that the appellant is attempting to prosecute an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing Counts II through IX of his Second Amended Complaint against the appellees. Such an interlocutory appeal is not permitted by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. An exception to the rule lies when a *1280count states a separate and distinct cause of action not interdependent with claims remaining for the trial court. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974). Counts presented by the appellant each involve an aspect of his previous business…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1974
  2. Venezia A., Inc. v. AskewDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
  3. Goff v. GEN. MOTORS CORP., DETROITDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Thomson v. PetherbridgeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API