DADE COUNTY
v.
TAICH, ET AL.
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.
Court denied county's motion to require mutual exchange of appraisal data and to suppress depositions of county experts in eminent domain proceedings, holding that Florida law does not require concurrent exchange of valuation data before defendant may depose plaintiff's appraisers.
Florida law does not require concurrent mutual exchange of valuation data in eminent domain proceedings, nor does it prohibit defendants from deposing the petitioner's expert appraisers before the defense completes its own appraisals.
[1] In eminent domain proceedings, Florida law does not require concurrent mutual exchange of valuation data between parties before a defendant may depose the plaintiff's exp…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade County sought to require mutual concurrent exchange of valuation data for two parcels and to suppress subpoenas for depositions of county expert …
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 Eminent Domain Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Order on motions: This cause came on to be heard upon the petitioner’s motion requiring mutual concurrent exchange of valuation data — parcel nos. 4 and 7; and the petitioner’s motion to suppress and quash subpoenas; to continue and postpone the taking of depositions of county expert witnesses until defendants have completed preparation of appraisal reports and exchanged said reports with the county; and the defendant’s written response to each of said motions; and the court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises,
It is considered, ordered and adjudged that the controlling provisions of Rules 1.010, and 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; §73.012, Florida Statutes; and §§2, 9 and 21 of article 1 of the 1968 Revision of the Florida Constitution, together with the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Shell v. State Road Department, 135 So.2d 857, properly construed, do not require a concurrent mutual exchange of valuation data nor do they prohibit the defendant in eminent domain proceedings, such as the above styled cause, from taking the depositions pursuant to notice and subpoena duces tecum of the petitioner’s expert real estate appraisers, as is sought to be done in this case, after suit is filed but *47before the defense has achieved completed appraisals and preparation of his case. Accordingly, it is further considered, ordered and adjudged that the said motions of the petitioner in the above styled cause each be and the same are hereby denied and the defendant may proceed with its discovery pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.