BERNICE RIEMER, APPELLANT,

v.

DAVID RIEMER, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• City OF Hollywood v. Zinkil, 283 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
  …City’s claim of ownership of Blocks 205 and C predicated upon common law dedication and prescription. See Graham v. Eisele, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 682; City of Miami v. Bell, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 742. See also Canella v. Bryant, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 328. The legal effect of those matters which were deemed admitted should be evaluated in light of the City’s evidence on the question of ownership predicated upon dedication and prescription. The admissions cannot be considered in isolation nor are they…
• Sheik Abdul Rahman Momenah v. Ammache, 616 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
  …iss the appellant’s action on the basis that he, while not being represented by a Florida attorney, did not travel from Saudi Arabia to Collier County, Florida, on nine days notice given to a representative in London, England. See Canella v. Bryant, 235 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA1970). The court, however, had the right to consider imposing sanctions upon the appellant for failing to follow its order requiring the appellant to appear for the taking of his deposition within thirty days from the date of the secon…
• Leatherby Ins. Co. v. Jones, 332 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
  …the discovery rules are neither punitive nor penal. Their objective is to compel compliance with discovery, and then only in flagrant or aggravated cases. Hurley v. Werly, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 530, 537. Also see Canella v. Bryant, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 328, 332. On the question of the denial of Leatherby’s motion for leave to amend its answer, we are of the opinion that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, and we grant certiorari. The record demonstrates that in spite of L…

Authorities Cited

• Kaplan v. Hamilton, 66 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1953)
• Martin v. Martin, 66 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1953)
• Vassar B. Carlton v. Carlton, 104 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1958)