MANATEE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ESTECH GENERAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Manatee County sought certiorari review of a discovery order compelling a county commissioner to answer deposition questions about her reasons for voting to deny Estech's development application. The court held that in an inverse condemnation action, the motive or factual basis for a government official's decision is not relevant and discovery on such matters is improper.
Discovery may not be compelled on such matters because in inverse condemnation actions, only whether governmental action constituted a taking is relevant; the motive of the governmental entity or individual official has no relevance and does not lead to admissible evidence.
[1] Common law certiorari is the proper method to review the grant of a discovery order.
[2] Discovery is generally permitted only on matters reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The issues in an action alleging a taking of land, or inverse condemnation, involve only the effect of governmental action on the use of the land. The question is simply whether the governmental action was a 'taking.'”
Establishes that motive is irrelevant in inverse condemnation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEstech applied for approval of a development of regional impact (DRI) under Florida law, which Manatee County denied. Estech then sued for inverse con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scope Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Manatee County petitions for common law certiorari to review the order below granting a motion to compel discovery and granting a motion to strike affirmative defenses. We grant certiorari to quash the order compelling discovery.
Respondent Estech General Chemicals Corporation (Estech) sought review below of petitioner Manatee County’s denial of Estech’s application for approval of a development of regional impact under sections 380.06 et seq., Florida Statutes (1979).
The complaint alleged a taking of Estech’s land without just compensation and sought damages, both apparently pursuant to the judicial review provisions of section 380.085, Florida Statutes (1979).
After pleadings were filed in the suit below, Estech deposed one of the Manatee County commissioners. The commissioner refused to answer numerous questions generally concerning the reasons for her vote to disapprove the application for a DRI and what evidence she considered in making her decision to vote against the approval. Respondent moved to compel answers to the questions. The court granted the motion to compel, apparently in the mistaken belief that respondent was entitled to know the factual basis for the commissioner’s decision. Petitioner Manatee County then filed this action for review of the order below under common law certiorari.
Certiorari is the proper method to review the grant of a discovery order. Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, 344 So. 2d 1304 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Belcher, 144 So. 2d 863 (Fla.2d DCA 1962).
We start our review by noting that discovery is usually permitted only on matters reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1957); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(d)(1). The right to discovery thus does not extend to matters which are not directly relevant and which cannot reasonably lead to relevant matters. Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, 346 So. 2d 100 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corporation, Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
We hold that the questions asked below fall under the above principles. The issues in an action alleging a taking of land, or inverse condemnation, involve only the effect of governmental action on the use of the land. The question is simply whether the governmental action was a “taking.” See Edwards Dairy, Inc. v. Pasco Water Authority, Inc., 378 So. 2d 866 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). The motive of the governmental entity in taking the action, much less the motive of an individual commissioner in voting, has no relevance to this action, and, moreover, we do not see any path from the questions leading to relevant matter.
We note that the action below is not an appeal of the petitioner’s action in denying the approval for development, so that the record factual basis for the decision might be significant. Substantive appeals from denials of DRI approval are taken in accordance with chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Section 380.085(2), Florida Statutes (1979). The action below is merely for inverse condemnation and damages, with the additional remedies provided by section 380.085(3), Florida Statutes (1979).
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order below compelling answers on deposition. We decline to review the grant of Estech’s motion to strike affirmative defenses. That order may not be reviewed by common law certiorari. Gibson v. Curry, 319 So. 2d 149 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
SCHEB, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gadsden Cnty. Times, Inc. v. Mallory E. Horne, 426 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…en stated that certiorari is the “appropriate vehicle for testing the correctness of an order governing discovery procedures.” Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018, 1018-1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Accord, Manatee County v. Estech General Chemicals Corp., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Affiliated of Florida, Inc. v. U-Need Sundries, Inc., 397 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. Makinney, 391 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). This is because [i]f plaintiff is wrongfully require…
-
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…nket bonds. We hold that the order requiring the production of these records constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law from which there would be no adequate remedy by appeal. See Manatee County v. Estech General Chemicals Corp., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). In a bad faith suit against an insurance company for failure to settle within the policy limits, the plaintiff may obtain discovery of the original claim file. Stone v. Travelers Insurance Co., 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…
-
Fla. Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…insurer. Orders requiring discovery are proper subjects for certiorari since an erroneously compelled disclosure, once made, may constitute irreparable harm which cannot be remedied by way of appeal. Manatee County v. Estech General Chemicals Corp., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, 344 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1978). Clarence W. Murphy and Frances Murphy, his wife, sued Cypress Gardens for damages resulting from an accident…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957)
- Zuberbuhler v. Division OF Administration, 344 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Belcher, 144 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- The City OF Miami v. Fraternal Order OF Police, 346 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corp., Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Edwards Dairy, Inc. v. Pasco Water Auth., Inc., 378 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Gibson v. Curry, 319 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)