LEON SOBEL, ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
BARBARA S. GOLDMAN AND IVAN K. GOLDMAN, APPELLEES
LEON SOBEL, ET UX., APPELLANTS,
BARBARA S. GOLDMAN AND IVAN K. GOLDMAN, APPELLEES
481 So. 2d 991
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1986)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The order denying appellants’ motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on them is a non-final order and is not among those non-final orders which may be appealed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130. If we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, petitioners have not demonstrated any departure from the essential requirements of law, so they are not entitled to certiorari relief.
Appeal DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drew v. State, 773 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2000)…time Kirkland was decided, the burglary statute did not include the “taking apart any portion” language used by the Legislature to define entry. This requirement was added in 1974. See ch. 74-383, § 30 Laws of Fla. . The court in Zippererv. State, 481 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), albeit per curiam, also affirmed convictions for both theft and burglary of a conveyance. However, Judge Up-church in dissent expressed his disagreement that the removal of a beer cooler from the open bed of a pickup truck could…
-
State v. Word, 711 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…n reading of the language of the statute that by removing the wheels and tires of the automobile, appellee entered the vehicle by taking apart a portion of the conveyance. See Braswell v. State, 671 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Zipperer v. State, 481 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Appellee’s theft of the wheels and tires removed from the automobile supply sufficient evidence of his intent to commit an offense after entering the automobile by taking apart or removing the wheels and tires. To the extent tha…