Bishopsgate Insurance Co. v. Hull & Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bishopsgate Insurance Co. v. Hull & Co.

475 So. 2d 1373, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2323, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16177

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1985

DocketNo. 85-791

StatusPublished

This text of 475 So. 2d 1373 (Bishopsgate Insurance Co. v. Hull & Co.) 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

Bishopsgate Insurance Co. v. Hull & Co., 475 So. 2d 1373, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2323, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16177 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the trial court’s order of March 14, 1985. It appears from the record that the materials sought to be discovered constitute either work product or are covered by the attorney-client privilege and that the respondents have failed to make the showing required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2). See, e.g., Broward Marine, Inc. v. McCall, 392 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Croft, 432 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Our reversal is without prejudice, on remand, for the trial court’s further consideration of the issue pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.280(b)(2).

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the trial court’s order of March 14, 1985. It appears from the record that the materials sought to be discovered constitute either work product or are covered by the attorney-client privilege and that the respondents have failed to make the showing required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2). See, e.g., Broward Marine, Inc. v. McCall, 392 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Croft, 432 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Our reversal is without prejudice, on remand, for the trial court’s further consideration of the issue pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.280(b)(2).

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 So. 2d 1373, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2323, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishopsgate-insurance-co-v-hull-co-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack