ARNOLD ROSEN AND BONNIE ROSEN, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE HONORABLE HAROLD SOLOMON, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Disputes cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
There is no doubt that the orders below appointing a “commissioner” — actually a master in flimsy semantic disguise — to resolve discovery disputes cannot be enforced in the face of the specific pre-hearing objections filed by the defendants-petitioners. Bathurst v. Turner, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); accord Wilson v. McKay, 568 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (agreement to previous order of reference does not waive objection to subsequent order); Kuper v. Kuper, 564 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, mandamus is granted requiring the trial court itself to hear and determine those matters. Bathurst, 533 So. 2d at 939. The petitions are otherwise denied. The stays previously entered are vacated instanter.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Wayda, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Wilson v. McKAY, 568 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 564 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Kuper v. Kuper, 564 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)