EVELYN RAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MERCY HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT
The certificate and briefs in this case have been examined and the certificate discloses that the question submitted, which relates to pretrial discovery, has been ruled upon by the trial judge. Thus the certificate seeks review of an interlocutory order-in this common law action. Moreover, the-ruling sought, which may be important in the litigation, is not determinative of the cause. We hold, therefore, that the question certified is not entitled to be entertained and determined by this court under rule 4.6, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. See Schwob Co. v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So.2d 782; Hunter v. Flowers, Fla. 1949, 38 So.2d 438; Prigger v. Kingery, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 323.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hancock Advertising, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 549 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e practical construction which has in fact been adopted by the industry which we are entitled to consider in our resolution of the statutory interpretation problem before us. 49 Fla.Jur.2d Statutes § 116; see Calio v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 169 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The record shows that, consistent with the common practice in the business, the particular sign involved here was treated indeed as being located “on” State Road 836, and not Interstate 95. Specifically, the traffic count and the…1 / 2
-
Jensen v. Hoofe, 184 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…on of this case having already been made the certification is inappropriate. See: Prigger v. Kingery, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So. 2d 323; Johnson v. Southeast Title and Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1963, 148 So. 2d 67; Ray v. Mercy Hospital, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 502. It further appears that the prejudice referred to in the question occurred subsequent to the ruling on the motion to vacate the default and arose out of events which occurred subsequent to the mandate in Jensen v. Hoofe, supra. See: State ex rel.…
-
Zimmer v. AETNA Ins. Co., 383 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ive purpose, to cover insurable sinkhole losses, and un [*994] less the rule is clearly contradictory, we must urge a construction of the rule which will carry out this legislative purpose. Calio v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, 169 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Sinkhole losses did not prove to be burdensome to the insurance industry. An order of the Insurance Commissioner dated April 26, 1973, recited that during the first three years of the plan for equitable apportionment of losses b…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schwob Co. of Fla. v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 152 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1942)
- Prigger v. Kingery, 144 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Hunter v. Flowers, 38 So.2d 438 (Fla. 1949)