RALPH E. SIMPSON AND ISABELLE G. SIMPSON, HIS WIFE, LLOYD GENSEMER, EDWARD J. SMOLA, RITA WALKER SHAW AND E. CLAY SHAW, HER HUSBAND, PETITIONERS,
v.
BROWARD COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that the pretrial order excluding evidence of noise from aircraft using an avigation easement is not reviewable by certiorari because the defendants have an adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment.
[1] A writ of certiorari will be granted to review an interlocutory order only when there is no full, adequate, and complete remedy available by appeal after final judgment.
[2] The assertion that an interlocutory order will deny a party the opportunity to present the true elements of damages is not a sufficient basis to grant a writ of certiorar…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an eminent domain proceeding, the trial court entered a pretrial order prohibiting defendants from presenting evidence of aircraft noise from an av…
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 Avigation Easement cases and more on FLexlaw
In an eminent domain proceeding seeking an air navigation (avigation) right and easement in order to establish and maintain a Clear Zone Approach Area at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Broward County, Florida, the court entered its pretrial order which provided that at the trial of this cause the defendants would not be permitted to place into evidence certain sound recordings or other evidence concerning noise from aircraft using the easement. The defendants seek to have this order reviewed by this original petition for writ of certiorari.
Generally speaking, the discretionary writ of certiorari will be granted to review an interlocutory order (not otherwise reviewable by interlocutory appeal) only in those cases in which it clearly appears that there is no full, adequate and complete remedy available to the petitioner by appeal after final judgment. Employers Fire Insurance Company v. Blanchard, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 381; Taylor v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 504; Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., Fla.App.1957, 101 So.2d 408. Petitioners’ assertion that the order in this case will deny them an opportunity of presenting to the jury the true elements of damages which they will suffer (the merits of which assertion we do not here decide), is not a sufficient basis to justify granting the writ of certiorari. Taylor v. Board of Public Instruction of Du-val County, supra.
In denying the petition for writ of cer-tiorari we do so without prejudice to the right of petitioners to seek appellate review of such order on appeal from the final judgment, should they be so advised. We feel confident that the trial court will be glad to clarify its order if the parties are in doubt as to its scope, and that any evidence which may be excluded by virtue thereof can be preserved for appellate review through appropriate identification and proffer at the trial.
Certiorari denied.
CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Nelson, 355 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…this point, but this court has answered petitioner’s contention in a number of recent cases. Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Solitron Devices, Inc. v. Reiland, 311 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Simpson v. Broward County, 241 So. 2d 193 [*159] (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). We see no reason not to follow those eases which adhere to the traditional concepts of review by common law certiorari. Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is denied. DENIED. DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concu…
-
Earnest v. State, 253 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…merits of the petition, the State contended that the admissibility of the challenged evidence should more appropriately be challenged by direct appeal, if and when the petitioner is convicted. We agree. [*459] As stated in Simpson v. Broward County, 241 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla.App. 4th, 1970): “Generally speaking, the discretionary writ of certiorari will be granted to review an interlocutory order (not otherwise reviewable by interlocutory appeal) only in those cases in which it clearly appears that there is n…
-
Stevens v. Pullman, Inc., 388 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…tiorari is denied because there is no showing that a full, adequate and complete remedy would not be available on appeal after final judgment. Vanco Construction, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 378 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In Simpson v. Broward County, 241 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), it was similarly argued that the order of the trial court would deny defendants the opportunity of presenting to the jury the true elements of damages they would suffer in the eminent domain proceeding, but it was held that this…
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
- Boucher v. The Pure OIL Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Taylor v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Duval Cnty., 131 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Emp'rs Fire Ins. Co. v. Blanchard, 234 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)