W-G DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
EARL H. STARNES, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
W-G DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
EARL H. STARNES, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
330 So. 2d 737
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1976)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner filed its petition for writ of certiorari to review the action of the respondent, to wit, the issuance of a binding letter of interpretation under Florida Statute 380.06(4)(a). Upon consideration, we remand this cause to the respondent for further proceedings, including the taking of testimony to establish a sufficient record for review. Upon remand the respondent shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Certiorari granted and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
HOBSON; A. C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gelco Corp. v. Escambia Cnty., 649 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1972). And see Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Dixon, 330 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1976). The petition is denied, however, as to that portion of the order requiring petitioner Flood to submit to a second deposition, because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s deci…
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. & Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Bonita Marie McGANN and Brian John McGann, 402 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…urt hearing, then in the case of a party objecting on grounds of the work product privilege, that party has the burden, first of showing the privilege. Surette v. Galiardo, 323 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Hospital Corporation of America v. Dixon, 330 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). At that point it would be incumbent upon the moving party to demonstrate the necessity for the production as required in Rule 1.280(b)(2), i. e., that he has a need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is…