S.H., AS PARENT OF D.H. AND J.H., CHILDREN, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certiorari Review Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for certiorari on the merits. The petition fails to allege how the trial court’s order of May 2, 2000 constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law causing irreparable harm. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987) (a non-final order is reviewable by certiorari only if it departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings, leaving no adequate remedy on appeal).
The petitioner seeks remedies from this court when adequate remedies are available in the lower court where pleadings can be dismissed or stricken after making findings of fact. Certiorari is not a writ of expediency and cannot be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule. See Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
PETITION DENIED.
COBB, PETERSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. L.D. and J.S., 840 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…be remedied on appeal following final judgment. Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.2000); Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1998); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987); S.H. v. Department of Children & Families, 769 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The Department argues there is no legal basis for the trial judge’s refusal to rule on the termination petition and that this refusal constitutes reversible error. We disagree. The trial court did not refuse to rule on the Depa…
-
Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 932 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…L.D., 840 So. 2d 432, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.2000); Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1998); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987); S.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 769 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). Hence, this court has consistently held that certiorari is the appropriate vehicle to challenge non-final orders compelling the discovery of information claimed to be privileged. See Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Leal, 917 So.…
-
Mariner Health Care v. Polly Y. Griffith, 898 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…rently!, certiorari is not a writ of expediency to be used to avoid the limitations on interlocutory appeals. See Champaign Nat. Bank & Trust v. SOS Industries, Inc., 847 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); S.H. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 769 So. 2d 452, 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). To be entitled to certiorari review of a non-final order, a petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court’s order is a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing irreparable injury which cannot be adequat…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- The Hawaiian INN OF Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)