DOVE INVESTMENT CORP v. LAU (2023)

The Court dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Pensacola Bank & Tr. Co. v. Nat'l Bank of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 So. 414, 414 (1909) (“The quoted entry in this cause [referring to ordering that judgment is rendered for the defendant] is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. No issue between the parties in the cause is adjudicated or finally disposed of thereby. It does not adjudge that the plaintiff take nothing by his plaint, nor does it adjudge that the defendant be discharged, or go hence without day. At best, it is an order for the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant, and an adjudication in his favor for costs.”); Catchings v. Fla.-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561, 561–62 (1931) (“[Language ordering that judgment is rendered for the defendant] may be regarded as an order that an appropriate judgment for the defendant be duly entered, but it is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error. The words, ‘judgment is hereby rendered herein for the defendant,’ are not the equivalent of words that the plaintiff ‘take nothing by his suit, and that the defendant go hence without day,’ or words of like legal import.”).

Per Curiam.

M.K. Thomas and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur; Kelsey, J., concurs in result.