ROGER FOELEY, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Cap. ONE, N.A. v. Forbes, 34 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
  …rder on review does not necessarily cause irreparable harm by allowing discovery of what the Bank claims to be irrelevant materials. See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Vreeland, 973 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing First Paradee, Ltd. v. Jones, 828 So. 2d 483, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Thus, certiorari jurisdiction is improper. We dismiss this portion of the Bank’s petition. Manuals Specified in Request 10 The Bank argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring…
• Desmond F. Ballard and Niles B. Whitten v. Bank of Am., 249 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
  …rs in [rule 9.130] is intended to be exhaustive."). We also conclude that the discovery and default rulings are not reviewable through certiorari. See Capital One, N.A. v. Forbes, 34 So. 3d 209, 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); First Paradee, Ltd. v. Jones, 828 So. 2d 483, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as it pertains to those rulings. With respect to the portion of the order that imposes sanctions in the total amount of $11,728.67 to be paid within thirty days from the entry of the circ…
• Foeley v. State, 869 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
  …w his plea on these grounds in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(Z). Thus, the court did not reach the merits of this claim. Apparently, the circuit court was not alerted to this court’s opinion in Foeley v. State, 828 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), in which we affirmed the order denying [*27] Foeley’s earlier rule 3.170(i) motion without prejudice to his filing a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We specifically stated that “[i…