FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
GLENDA DALE NELSON, YVONNE MCCLEAN, GLADSTONE GRANZA, HERMAN NELSON, JESSIE HOLLINGSWORTH AND YVONNE FREEMAN, RESPONDENTS
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.
Ford Motor Company sought review of a trial court order striking its affirmative defense of failure to use available seat belts in an automobile accident suit. The appellate court denied Ford's petition for writ of certiorari, holding that interlocutory orders striking pleadings are not immediately reviewable absent exceptional circumstances, and must await final judgment.
An interlocutory order striking an affirmative defense is not subject to immediate review by writ of certiorari. Review must await final judgment from plenary appeal, unless the trial court's action constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law with no full, adequate, and complete review available through final appeal.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari is appropriate to review an interlocutory order when the trial court's action constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of…
[2] The potential expense of a second trial due to an erroneous ruling on a pleading does not, in itself, render appellate review by plenary appeal inadequate for purposes of…
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 intelligence“it may be reviewed by Writ of Certiorari if the action of the trial court constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and there is no full, adequate and complete review available to petitioner by plenary appeal from the final judgment”
Establishes the standard for when interlocutory orders may be reviewed by certiorari
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord Motor Company was sued in connection with an automobile accident by multiple respondents. Ford raised an affirmative defense of failure to use 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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
By Petition for Writ of Certiorari Ford Motor Company seeks review of an order of the trial court striking Ford’s affirmative defense of failure to use available seat belts in a suit arising out of an automobile accident.
The question presented arises as a result of an interlocutory order in a case formerly cognizable at law. Thus it may be reviewed by Writ of Certiorari if the action of the trial court constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and there is no full, adequate and complete review available to petitioner by plenary appeal from the final judgment.
From petitioner’s viewpoint the operative word here is “adequate” because petitioner states in its brief:
“If Ford must wait until after final judgment for review of this matter, it faces the possible expense of two trials. Cer-tiori should lie to review the order as it would be a waste of judicial time and labor for review to be delayed until after final adjudication.”
But that argument is applicable in almost every erstwhile common law action in which a pleading has been stricken or such a motion denied. If the ruling is error and it could have affected the outcome of the case, then a second trial may be necessary. The cases are not entirely consistent on 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 (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 certiorari is denied.
DENIED.
DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Hawaiian INN OF Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…v. McKenzie, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). . See Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Professional Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Ford Motor Company v. Nelson, 355 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Whiteside v. Johnson, 351 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); and Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc., 287 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Haddad, Certiorari in Florida, 29 U.Fla.L.Rev. 207, 223 n. 126 (1977). .Scheuer v. Wille, 370 So. 2…
-
Paine v. Lucas, 411 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ing the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute); Professional Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (order denying motions to compel answers in a discovery deposition); Ford Motor Company v. Nelson, 355 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (order striking affirmative defense); Whiteside v. Johnson, 351 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (order denying motion to dismiss). . See, e.g., Balboa Insurance Co. v. W. G. Mills, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); R. W. […
-
Cont'l Equities, Inc. v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 558 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…that potential waste of time and money which would be incurred if a trial court error is not corrected before trial is not that type of injury. Hawaiian Inn v. Snead Construction Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ford Motor Co. v. Nelson, 355 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The most recent pronouncement from the Supreme Court of Florida on certiorari jurisdiction suggests, if anything, the district courts of this state should be even more co…
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
- Humphrey v. Seminole Cnty. Court, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Solitron Devices, Inc. v. Reiland, 311 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Simpson v. Broward Cnty., 241 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)