Bruce v. Hollingsworth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bruce v. Hollingsworth

820 So. 2d 1000, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8769, 2002 WL 1369445

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-1454

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 820 So. 2d 1000 (Bruce v. Hollingsworth) 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

Bruce v. Hollingsworth, 820 So. 2d 1000, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8769, 2002 WL 1369445 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the order under review terminating the status of the appellant as an intervening plaintiff in a class action proceeding. See Southeastern Iron Workers Health Care Plan v. Engle, 813 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Florida Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement, 707 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), review denied, 718 So.2d 167 (Fla.1998); Hatcher v. Roberts, 478 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 68 (Fla.1986). We observe that the order and its affirmance are necessarily without prejudice to an application, if appropriate, by the appellant for intervention in the future. See Belfort v. Falowski 749 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

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

PER CURIAM.

No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the order under review terminating the status of the appellant as an intervening plaintiff in a class action proceeding. See Southeastern Iron Workers Health Care Plan v. Engle, 813 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Florida Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement, 707 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), review denied, 718 So.2d 167 (Fla.1998); Hatcher v. Roberts, 478 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 68 (Fla.1986). We observe that the order and its affirmance are necessarily without prejudice to an application, if appropriate, by the appellant for intervention in the future. See Belfort v. Falowski 749 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 So. 2d 1000, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8769, 2002 WL 1369445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-v-hollingsworth-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack