WARREN R. WROBLESKI, SR., PETITIONER,
v.
LOTTIE WROBLESKI, RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of common law certiorari addressed to the trial court’s order which denied the defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney, Calvin Brown, and his law firm, Collins, Brown, Caldwell & Carter. We have jurisdiction to consider the petition pursuant to Article V, Section 4(b)(3), Florida Constitution. The trial court refused to rule on the merits of the motion. We hold that the refusal to consider the merits of that motion is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Pantori, Inc. v. Stephenson, 384 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Accordingly, certiorari is granted, the order quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LETTS, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rainerman v. Eagle Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 541 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)….Ed.2d 430, 445-446 n. 1 (1983) (a witness need show only a realistic possibility that his answer will be used against him); Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1123-24 (1951); Meek v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 458 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (no need to prove actual indictment or investigation); DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); DeLisi v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 934, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983). See generall…
-
Austin v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…a claim of privilege is asserted, the trial court should hold an in camera inspection to review the discovery requested and determine whether assertion of the privilege is valid. Gross, 462 So. 2d at 581; see also Meek v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 458 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). [*831] We therefore grant the petition and quash the order under review. CERTIORARÍ GRANTED. DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Magid v. Elliot C. Winter, 654 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…le that a criminal prosecution will be brought or that the witness’s answer will be introduced in a later prosecution; the witness need only show a realistic possibility that the answers will be used against him.” Meek v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 458 So. 2d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (quoting Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 266 n. 1, 103 S.Ct. 608, 619, n. 1, 74 L.Ed.2d 430, 445-46 n. 1 (1983)). A trial court may properly require a witness to answer questions only if it is perfectly clear that the…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pantori, Inc. v. Stephenson, 384 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)