HAVEN OF LAKE AND SUMTER COUNTIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
C. JOHN CONIGLIO, P.A., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
HAVEN OF LAKE AND SUMTER COUNTIES, INC., APPELLANT,
C. JOHN CONIGLIO, P.A., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
774 So. 2d 59
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 9 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
In this case, we affirm the trial judge’s granting of a summary judgment. On June 9, 2000, this Court issued an Order which denied Appellant’s counsel’s request to withdraw. The last paragraph of that Order suggested that at the conclusion of this appeal, issues of misrepresentation might be referred to the trial judge, as special master, to determine what, if any, were made. We are now satisfied this would serve no useful purpose. We further determine that consideration of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, would not be warranted.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, and PLEUS, JJ., and R. POWELL, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Jorge J. Leal, M.D., 917 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…rotected materials for an in camera inspection, is ripe for certiorari review when the order does not yet require (and perhaps may never require) disclosure of the documents to the opposing party. Dr. Leal relies on Gaton v. Health Coalition, Inc., 774 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), for the proposition that certiorari review of an order, which requires submission of documents to the court for an in camera inspection, is premature because no production has been ordered to the opposing party. In Gaton, a speci…
-
Jacquelyn Bennett and Bobbi Sue Miller v. Marie-Christine Berges, 84 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…cer-tiorari review was premature because no irreparable harm had been demonstrated where the order under review merely required documents to be produced for an in camera inspection and no discovery had yet been ordered); Gaton v. Health Coal., Inc., 774 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (certiorari review of an order requiring submission of documents allegedly protected by the trade secret privilege to the courts for an in camera inspection was premature because no production had been ordered to the opposing part…
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…order dated February 9, 2012, simply directed petitioner to create a privilege log and provide the documents under seal for an in camera inspection. We deny the petition as to this order because it is premature. See Gaton v. Health Coalition, Inc., 774 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The second order, dated March 7, 2012, however, compelled the petitioner to produce its entire claim file. This order departs from the essential requirements of law and will cause irreparable harm which cannot be remedied o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence