TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, TENET HEALTHCARE MEDICAL, INC., LIFEMARK HOSPITALS, INC., AND LIFEMARK HOSPITALS OF FLORIDA, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
HIALEAH-MIAMI SPRINGS MEDICAL FUND, RESPONDENT
TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, TENET HEALTHCARE MEDICAL, INC., LIFEMARK HOSPITALS, INC., AND LIFEMARK HOSPITALS OF FLORIDA, INC., PETITIONERS,
HIALEAH-MIAMI SPRINGS MEDICAL FUND, RESPONDENT
761 So. 2d 1140
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2000)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 20 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for writ of certiorari. We entirely agree with the trial court that, based on the pleadings and factual record developed in this case, there has been a waiver of privilege through issue injection. See Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D.Wash.1975); Home Ins. Co. v. Advance Mach. Co., 443 So. 2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In view of the approaching trial date and the thorough and able presentation by both sides in this court, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2002)…strict scrutiny test.” Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521, 527 (Fla.2001). To withstand strict scrutiny, a law must be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. See State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140, 1144 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Absent the involvement of a suspect class or a fundamental right, courts usually invoke the rational basis test, under which the law must bear some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes. See, e.g., Lite v.…
-
State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2004)…eshold determination in any constitutional analysis; it is often the most crucial. In this case, it has made all the difference. The district court originally reviewed these ordinances under a heightened scrutiny, and upheld them. See State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140, 1146, 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (T.M.I). On remand from this Court, it applied strict scrutiny, and invalidated them. See J.P. v. State, 832 So. 2d 110, 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (J.P.III). Therefore, we should thoughtfully analyze the applicable standa…1 / 3
-
T.M. v. State, 784 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2001)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified two questions to be of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The facts as summarized from the district court’s opinion are as fol…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Home Ins. Co. & N. River Ins. Co. as Subrogees For Athlone Indus., Inc. v. Advance Mach. Co., 443 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)