Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Okeelanta Corp. v. McDonald

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 12, 1999No. 98-4180Published

1ConcurrenceStevenson, J.

I concur in the result reached by the majority. The order on appeal neither determines that a class should be certified, rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii), nor denies a motion to certify a class, rule 9.130(a)(6); rather, the order denies a motion to de-eertify a class, and these orders are not specifically covered by rule 9.130. Rule 9.130 was intended to be restrictive of non-final appeals. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns, 443 So.2d 959, 961 (Fla.1984)(“The thrust of rule 9.130 is to restrict the number of appealable nonfinal orders.”). Florida courts have repeatedly rejected broad interpretations…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Travelers Ins. Co. v. BrunsSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
  2. Hastings v. DemmingSupreme Court of Florida · 1997
  3. Hernando County v. LEISURE HILLS, INCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  4. BE & K, INC. v. Seminole Kraft Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  5. Heritage Paper Co., Inc. v. FarahDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API