JOSEPH H. ROSALER, APPELLANT,
v.
IRIS KANTER ROSALER, APPELLEE
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.
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting discovery of opposing counsel's work product and cross-examination regarding attorney fees in a dissolution of marriage case.
A trial court's discretionary rulings on discovery requests and limitations on cross-examination of opposing counsel regarding work performed are affirmed absent a clear abuse of discretion.
[1] Trial courts possess wide discretion in ruling on discovery requests and cross-examination limitations, and such rulings are not disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage action, the husband appealed an order awarding attorneys' fees and costs to the wife, challenging the trial court's denia…
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 Motion For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated appeal from an order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to the wife in an action for dissolution of marriage.
The husband seeks reversal on the grounds that the trial court erred by depriving him of the right to review the diary of the wife’s attorney and in limiting the cross-examination of her attorney pertaining to work performed.
We have considered appellant’s points and found them to be without merit.
The trial court has wide discretion in its treatment of requests for discovery and the court’s ruling will not be disturbed unless an abuse of that discretion has been shown. No abuse of discretion has been made to appear in this case. Accordingly, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. Stowe v. Shults, 379 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Abelson v. Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1976); Crystal Springs Water Co. v. Atchison, 267 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
Appellant’s next contention is that the trial court erred in limiting the cross-examination of appellee’s attorney at the hearing on the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. We find no merit in this contention. No reversible error having been demonstrated, the order appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Worth v. the Est. of Idelle Stern, 241 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 625 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…e power and discretion of the trial court. A trial court possesses broad discretion in overseeing discovery, and protecting the parties that come before it. American Southern Co. v. Tinier, Inc., 565 So. 2d 891 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Rosaler v. Rosaler, 442 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1984). The order entered here accomplishes the discovery of the sought after medical records in the most expeditious and practical way possible, by having the records released directly to the Respo…
-
The Am. S. Co. & Dev. Corp. of Am. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…uld constitute “fatal error.” Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, 199 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla.1967). Unless an abuse of the trial court’s wide discretion in its treatment of requests for discovery is shown, the court’s ruling will not be disturbed. Rosaler v. Rosaler, 442 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The Florida Supreme Court specifically addressed the propriety of certiorari review for discovery orders in Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987). Finding that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, it held…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abelson v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Crystal Springs Water Co. v. Burrell G. Atchison and his wife, 267 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Stowe v. Shults, 379 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)