GISELLE LUGONES
v.
PHYSICIAN'S INDEMNITY RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC.
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.
A subpoena issued by the Nevada Division of Insurance constitutes a foreign subpoena under Florida Statute § 92.251(2)(b) and has the same force and effect as a subpoena from a court of record.
[1] A subpoena issued by the Nevada Division of Insurance qualifies as a foreign subpoena under Florida law where Nevada law authorizes it to be served with the same force an…
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 intelligencePetitioner Giselle Lugones sought a writ of certiorari challenging a trial court decision regarding the validity of a subpoena issued by the Nevada Di…
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 Subpoena Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. See § 92.251(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2019) (defining “foreign subpoena” as a subpoena “issued under authority of a court of record of a foreign jurisdiction”); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 679B.340(2) (West 2019) (providing that a subpoena issued by the Nevada Division of Insurance “shall have the same force and effect and shall be served in the same manner as if issued from a court of record”); Unif. Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act § 3, cmt. (2007) (observing that a “Court of Record” under the act “includes anyone who is authorized to issue a subpoena under the laws of that state”); Lackos v. State, 339 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1976) (stating that the modern trend in both civil and criminal proceedings is to excuse technical procedural defects that “have no bearing upon the substantial rights of the parties”).
GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.