DIANNE GLASSER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. ISAACS, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIAN W. DARREN, A/K/A BRIAN W. DARREN, SR., MICHAEL J. DARREN, LYNN ANN DARREN, JANEL DARREN AND BRIAN W. DARREN, JR., APPELLEES
DIANNE GLASSER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. ISAACS, APPELLANT,
BRIAN W. DARREN, A/K/A BRIAN W. DARREN, SR., MICHAEL J. DARREN, LYNN ANN DARREN, JANEL DARREN AND BRIAN W. DARREN, JR., APPELLEES
552 So. 2d 340
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1989)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
This is a non-final appeal from an order denying a motion to compel discovery. Since it does not qualify for appellate review under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130, we search to see if the order is subject to certiorari review. Certiorari is not available because it does not appear that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law and it does appear that an adequate remedy will be available upon plenary appeal.
Based on a lack of jurisdiction the appeal is
DISMISSED.
DOWNEY, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Am. S. Co. & Dev. Corp. of Am. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…duplicate taking of depositions. The standard applicable for a writ of common-law certiorari is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law and there exist adequate remedies for any injury or harm. See Glasser v. Darren, 552 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Generally, a trial court possesses broad discretion in granting or refusing discovery motions and in protecting the parties. Only an abuse of this broad discretion would constitute “fatal error.” Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, 199 So. 2…