Florida Highway Patrol v. Jackson
The Supreme Court held that rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi) carries the same meaning the Court gave to identical language in the workers' compensation immunity subdivision under Hastings/Reeves: a nonfinal order denying sovereign immunity is appealable only if the order itself expressly states that, as a matter of law, the party is not entitled to immunity, and the appellate court may not scour the record to find such a determination. Finding the rule as written insufficiently protective of sovereign immunity interests, the Court simultaneously amended rule 9.130 (in companion case SC19-1734) to broaden interlocutory review of orders denying sovereign immunity, section 768.28(9) immunity, and federal civil-rights immunity.
Key facts
- Florida Highway Patrol appealed a trial court order denying sovereign immunity, raising questions about the appealability of nonfinal immunity orders and the proper standard for determining entitlement to sovereign immunity.
- The trial court denied the defendant's sovereign immunity claim, but the order's language and sufficiency to support interlocutory appeal were at issue.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a landmark decision for anyone litigating against or on behalf of government entities: it confirms (under the pre-amendment rule) that interlocutory appealability turns on the four corners of the trial court's… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.