Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Lore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Lore

618 So. 2d 369, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5689, 1993 WL 169182

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1993

DocketNo. 92-4341

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 618 So. 2d 369 (Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Lore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Lore, 618 So. 2d 369, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5689, 1993 WL 169182 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners in this medical malpractice action seek a writ of certiorari to reverse an order of the Circuit Court determining that the presuit investigation conducted by defendants/appellees complied with the provisions of section 766.106(3), Florida Statutes. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari will be granted only in those situations where the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or the order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and will cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings which cannot be remedied on appeal. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla.1957). See also Pitcairn v. Vowell, 580 So.2d 219, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). On the record before us, we cannot say that the ruling of the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. Because the standard for certiorari has not been met, we deny the writ.

JOANOS, C.J., and MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners in this medical malpractice action seek a writ of certiorari to reverse an order of the Circuit Court determining that the presuit investigation conducted by defendants/appellees complied with the provisions of section 766.106(3), Florida Statutes. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari will be granted only in those situations where the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or the order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and will cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings which cannot be remedied on appeal. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla.1957). See also Pitcairn v. Vowell, 580 So.2d 219, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). On the record before us, we cannot say that the ruling of the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. Because the standard for certiorari has not been met, we deny the writ.

JOANOS, C.J., and MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 So. 2d 369, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5689, 1993 WL 169182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-ex-rel-anderson-v-lore-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack