Bohan v. Cal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bohan v. Cal

524 So. 2d 1111, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1112, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1878, 1988 WL 44166

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1988

DocketNo. 88-1033

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 524 So. 2d 1111 (Bohan v. Cal) 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

Bohan v. Cal, 524 So. 2d 1111, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1112, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1878, 1988 WL 44166 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek certiorari from an order granting summary judgment for defendants on the issue of the permanency of personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Petitioner’s evidence in opposition to summary judgment consisted of a physician’s affidavit to the effect that permanent injury had been sustained. The court struck this affidavit apparently because the affiant had not been disclosed as an expert witness within the time specified by the court’s pretrial order. This is plainly error. However, the order in question is not one that may be addressed by certiorari proceedings but must await redress on plenary appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. U.S.C.P. Company, 515 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Accordingly, certiorari is denied.

CERTIORARI DENIED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek certiorari from an order granting summary judgment for defendants on the issue of the permanency of personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Petitioner’s evidence in opposition to summary judgment consisted of a physician’s affidavit to the effect that permanent injury had been sustained. The court struck this affidavit apparently because the affiant had not been disclosed as an expert witness within the time specified by the court’s pretrial order. This is plainly error. However, the order in question is not one that may be addressed by certiorari proceedings but must await redress on plenary appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. U.S.C.P. Company, 515 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Accordingly, certiorari is denied.

CERTIORARI DENIED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 So. 2d 1111, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1112, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1878, 1988 WL 44166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bohan-v-cal-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack