PETER A. B. WIDENER, III, AND M. E. BARNETT, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARTIN M. KELLENBERGER, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, denied a petition for certiorari seeking review of an interlocutory order that refused to dismiss counts two and three of an amended complaint. The court found no significant difference between this case and others where such interlocutory appeals are not permitted.
No, the court should not grant certiorari to review the interlocutory order denying the motion to dismiss.
“We have not found a significant difference between this case and other cases in which the courts have denied certiorari to review an interlocutory order refusing to dismiss a count or complaint in a common law action.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for denying the petition, highlighting the lack of unique circumstances justifying interlocutory review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners, who were defendants in the lower court, sought review of an interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss counts two and three …
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 Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners, defendants below, petition this court for certiorari seeking review of an interlocutory order at law denying their motion to dismiss counts two and three of plaintiff’s four count amended complaint. We have examined the briefs of the parties and the record in this cause to determine if there is any reason why this particular case should be entitled to what amounts to an interlocutory appeal at law and, secondly, whether the petitioner would have a full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment is rendered.
We have not found a significant difference between this case and other cases in which the courts have denied certiorari to review an interlocutory order refusing to dismiss a count or complaint in a common law action. See Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So.2d 188; Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corp., Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 30.
Certiorari denied.
SHANNON, C. J., and ALLEN and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Joan Claire Hender Warrick (formerly known as Joan Claire Hender) v. Hender, 198 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…ther had waived the right to support payments during the time her now departed husband dominated the household. This result, if not the precise reasoning, appears to be fully in accord with the principle set forth in Denton v. Denton, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So. 2d 545, 548, namely: “Judicial opinion in Florida strongly supports the- view that where a father is granted visitation rights with correlative obligations to make support payments for his children, he ordinarily should not be required to make such paymen…
-
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 424 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…o. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); see Armour; Teta v. Teta, 297 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Brown v. Brown, 108 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). We find no evidence that the wife violated any order requiring visitation. Panganiban; Denton v. Denton, 147 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); see Phillips v. Adams, 339 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Teta. The Final Judgment of Dissolution contained no provision for visitation because the court had not been informed that a child existed. Mrs. O’Brien has complied with…
-
In re the Marriage of Luz Joson Panganiban v. Panganiban, 396 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…lassic example of this power to refuse to enforce accrued child support is when the custodial parent has refused to comply with the visitation provisions of the court order. See Warrick v. Hender, 198 So. 2d 348 (Fla.4th DCA 1967); Denton v. Denton, 147 So. 2d 545 (Fla.2d DCA 1962). While appellant’s conduct does not approach the reprehensible nature of refusal of visitation, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in finding a waiver of the past due payments. Appellant previously moved for c…
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
- The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Wolf v. Indus. Supply Corp., 62 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1952)