Liebman v. Miami-Dade County Code Compliance Office

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding orders granting motion to dismiss and affording leave to amend are non-final, non-appealable
• dismissing in part in finding this Court “lack[ed] jurisdiction to review the two orders granting motions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to amend. These orders are non- final and non-appealable.”
• “The complaint failed to give this ostensible defendant actual notice that a lawsuit was being commenced against her. Liebman’s attempted service of process upon this individual (in which the summons described the person to be served as ‘unknown John Doe # 5’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• FEDERICO DINARDO and PATRICIA DINARDO v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING , LLC
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2020-11-04
• Neptune v. Boncroft
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-04-10
• Alma Sanchez v. Security First Insurance Company
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2024-03-06
• Cash Wallace Pawley, Sr. v. First National Bank of South Miami, N.A.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2024-08-28

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gilliam v. Smart
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-03-15· cited 17×
• Welch v. Resolution Trust Corporation
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-12-27· cited 13×
• Grantham v. Blount, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-09-27· cited 8×
• Bank of America, N.A. v. Cartus
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-02-15· cited 2×