(Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Chicago Title Ins. Agency v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Perimeter Invs. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co., 423 So.2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Sarnoff, 776 So.2d 976, 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (Benton, J., dissenting). Jurisdiction to review a non-final order denying an injunction does not confer plenary appellate jurisdiction authorizing review of the other matters the non-final order addresses. That the order under review is not a final order within the meaning of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A) as contemplated by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(1) is clear. See, e.g., Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So.2d 1215, 1215-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). The basic rule is that an order is final only
holding that an order authorizing a sale is a final judgment recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that even an order that establishes entitlement to a judgment is not final unless it  actually enters or renders a judgment  or includes specific language of finality necessary for a judgment  to be considered final for purposes of an appeal