SPORTS PRODUCTS, INC. OF FORT LAUDERDALE, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
ESTATE OF MARIANNE INALIEN BY AND THROUGH FRANCOIS INALIEN, SPOUSE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ADMINISTRATOR AND FRANCOIS INALIEN ON BEHALF OF ALL SURVIVORS AND HEIRS AND ON HIS OWN BEHALF, RESPONDENTS
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.
The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's factual findings regarding the evidentiary basis for punitive damages.
Petitioner complained that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiffs evidence met the criteria for pleading punitive damages under section 768.7…
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 Punitive Damages Pleading Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Petitioner complains that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiffs evidence met the criteria for pleading punitive damages. The court’s certiorari jurisdiction is not so broad as to permit review of a finding that the plaintiffs evidentiary basis for punitive damages was sufficient to comply with the requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, thereby permitting amendment of the complaint.
This court has certiorari jurisdiction to require that the trial court make a factual finding prior to granting leave to amend. See, e.g., Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 642 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1994) (table); Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, the fact that this court will conduct an immediate review to determine whether the trial court has conducted the inquiry required by the statute does not also mean that we will exercise certiorari jurisdiction to conduct an immediate review of the findings of fact made in the course of that inquiry.
We acknowledge conflict with those decisions that have granted certiorari review in such a case, Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Rockhead, 639 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and Key West Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Doherty, 619 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
STONE, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simeon, Inc. v. COX, 671 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1996)…Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 642 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1994) (punitive damages claim), Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (financial worth discovery), and Sports Products, Inc., v. Estate of Inalien, 658 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review dismissed, 659 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1995), the district court ruled that the procedure mandated by section 768.72 must be followed, and failure to adhere to that procedure departs from the essential requirements of the law. T…
-
Mayer v. Frank, 659 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…review is appropriate to determine whether the trial court has conducted the evidentiary hearing required by section 768.72 prior to authorizing a punitive damages claim, approving this court’s opinion in Sports Products, Inc. v. Estate of Inalien, 658 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 21, 1994), rev. dismissed, No. 84,988, 659 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. June 7, 1995). Here, Respondents filed a complaint that, in contravention of the plain proscription of [*1255] the statute, included a punitive damages claim without th…
-
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Jane DOE & Jane Doe, 44 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…to determine whether a court has conducted the evidentiary inquiry required by section 768.72. The Florida Supreme Court “specifically agreefd] with the reasoning of the Fourth District in its decision in Sports Products, Inc. [v. Estate of Inalien, 658 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ], that certiorari review is appropriate to determine whether a court has conducted the evidentiary inquiry required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes.” Globe, 658 So. 2d at 520. In Globe, the Florida Supreme Court also specif…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- KEY W. Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Dinny Doherty, 619 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Houston v. State, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Nickerson v. State, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Rockhead, 639 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)