DOROTHY M. DISNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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.
Prudential Insurance appealed an order sustaining in part and overruling in part its objection to written interrogatories in a complaint filed by Dorothy Disney. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discovery ruling, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in requiring production of certain discovery materials.
The appellate court held that Prudential failed to demonstrate error or abuse of discretion by the trial court. An appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the broad discretion accorded a trial court in ruling on objections to interrogatories absent clearly demonstrated error.
“In the absence of clearly demonstrated error, an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the broad discretion accorded a trial court in ruling on objections to interrogatories.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for discovery rulings—requiring clear error to reverse a trial court's exercise of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrudential served nineteen written interrogatories on Disney following the filing of her complaint. Disney objected to the interrogatories on grounds …
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 Interrogatories cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant seeks review by interlocutory appeal of an order entered by -the chancellor sustaining in part and overruling in part plaintiff’s objection to written interrogatories served on it by defendant.
Subsequent to the filing of the complaint herein defendant served on plaintiff nineteen written interrogatories, most of which. contain several subdivisions. Plaintiff filed its written objection to the interrogatories on the principal grounds that they are immaterial to the issues in the cause, cannot lead to evidence that is material, and are designed merely to harass plaintiff. After hearing the chancellor rendered the order appealed herein overruling plaintiff’s objection to eleven of the interrogatories, and sustaining its objection to the remainder. In addition the chancellor ordered plaintiff to produce and submit to defendant for inspection and copying all of the specified documents forming the basis of the cause of action sued upon.
It is appellant’s contention that the chancellor committed prejudicial error and abused his discretion in denying defendant access to the information and evidence requested in those interrogatories to which objection was sustained. We have reviewed the interrogatories in question and carefully considered the argument advanced by the respective parties concerning the correctness of the order appealed. In con-*658«deration of the nature of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, the documents and information which plaintiff is required to furnish defendant pursuant to the requirements of those interrogatories to which objection was overruled, it is •our conclusion that appellant has failed to demonstrate error or an abuse of discretion by the chancellor in rendering the order appealed. In the absence of clearly demonstrated error, an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the broad discretion accorded a trial court in ruling on objections to interrogatories.1
The order appealed is accordingly affirmed and the interlocutory appeal dismissed.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Miller Indus., Inc., 210 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ach Health Furniture Co. v. Thal, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 64; Girten v. Bouvier, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 745; Wingreen Company v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 408; Disney v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 657.…
-
Merritt v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 251 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…final hearing. In determining error in this regard it is axiomatic that in order for the appellants to prevail on such a point an abuse of discretion by the trial court must be shown. Disney v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 657; Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, Fla.1967, 199 So. 2d 97. Examining the record as it existed before the trial judge at the time he entered the order complained of, fails to demonstrate that the trial judge abused any discretion in making his ruling. Therefore…
-
Disney v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am., 197 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…rally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the decree of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See also Fla.App., 193 So. 2d 657. RAWLS, C. J., WIGGINTON, and CARROLL, DONALD IC., JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1956)