Capital Bank v. Manguart

549 So. 2d 234, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2258, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5197, 1989 WL 110944
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 26, 1989
DocketNo. 89-523
StatusPublished

This text of 549 So. 2d 234 (Capital Bank v. Manguart) 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
Capital Bank v. Manguart, 549 So. 2d 234, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2258, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5197, 1989 WL 110944 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Capital Bank appeals from a post-judgment order granting a motion for a protective order directing that the deposition of a nonparty witness, not be had. We quash the protective order. The deposition sought can proceed subject to claims of privilege to be brought before the trial court. See Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Smith, 416 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The protective order is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

YOUNG, STERN & TANNENBAUM v. Smith
416 So. 2d 4 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
549 So. 2d 234, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2258, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5197, 1989 WL 110944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-bank-v-manguart-fladistctapp-1989.