SPIKE VON ZAMFT, RONALD I. BARON AND JAMES D. EVANS, APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE S. HELLER, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
SPIKE VON ZAMFT, RONALD I. BARON AND JAMES D. EVANS, APPELLANTS,
GEORGE S. HELLER, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
425 So. 2d 156
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 53 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the final judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint to foreclose the mortgage and remand to the trial court with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of the mortgage on the authority of Campbell v. Werner, 232 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). See also Scarfo v. Peever, 405 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Damsky v. Univ. OF Miami & Alan Livingstone, M.D., 152 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm.” Neeley v. CW Roberts Contracting, Inc., 948 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Esman v. Bd. of Regents, 425 So. 2d 156, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (“[T]he trial court’s interlocutory ruling denying discovery does not furnish the occasion for this court’s intervention through the use of the extraordinary writ.”). Second, the Damskys contend that the order allows the Un…
-
Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987). We conclude in this instance that petitioner has failed to demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm arising from the trial court’s order. As evidenced by decisions such as Esman v. Board of Regents, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this court has adhered to the view that orders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm. Petitioner nonetheless relies on decisions of o…
-
Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…05 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). However, it is generally held that certiorari may not be utilized to review orders which deny discovery because such orders, if in error, can be rectified upon plenary appeal. See, e.g., Esman v. Board of Regents, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Professional Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. DENIED. COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. Werner, 232 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- The City OF Pensacola v. Blanchard, 232 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Scarfo v. Peever, 405 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)