Danieli Corp. v. Russo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Danieli Corp. v. Russo

329 So. 2d 426, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14087

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 1976

DocketNo. 75-2164

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 329 So. 2d 426 (Danieli Corp. v. Russo) 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

Danieli Corp. v. Russo, 329 So. 2d 426, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14087 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, Danieli Corporation, Danieli Marketing and June Martino, have filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order denying protective relief and requiring production of income tax returns and other financial data.

A review of the proceedings reveals that except as to petitioner Martino, all of the points raised in petitioners’ brief deal with objections never presented to or ruled upon by the trial court; under these circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner has demonstrated his entitlement to extraordinary relief by certiorari. See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 82; 5 Fla.Jur., Certiorari, § 26; Dairyland Insurance Company v. McKenzie, 251 So.2d 887 (Fla.App. 1st 1971). However, with respect to petitioner Martino the production of her income tax returns is irrelevant to any of the issues framed in the complaint and the required production thereof constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.¹ Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So.2d 512 (Fla.App. 1st 1973); Ernst & Ernst v. Reedus, 260 So.2d 258 (Fla. App. 3d 1972); see also Trawick’s Fla. Practice & Procedure, 1975 ed., §§ 16-3 and 16-10.

Accordingly, certiorari is denied as to petitioners Danieli Corporation and Dani-eli Marketing.² Certiorari is granted as to petitioner Martino and the challenged order is quashed insofar as it denies protection of the income tax returns of petitioner Martino.

CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur. WALDEN, C. J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, Danieli Corporation, Danieli Marketing and June Martino, have filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order denying protective relief and requiring production of income tax returns and other financial data.

A review of the proceedings reveals that except as to petitioner Martino, all of the points raised in petitioners’ brief deal with objections never presented to or ruled upon by the trial court; under these circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner has demonstrated his entitlement to extraordinary relief by certiorari. See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 82; 5 Fla.Jur., Certiorari, § 26; Dairyland Insurance Company v. McKenzie, 251 So.2d 887 (Fla.App. 1st 1971). However, with respect to petitioner Martino the production of her income tax returns is irrelevant to any of the issues framed in the complaint and the required production thereof constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.¹ Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So.2d 512 (Fla.App. 1st 1973); Ernst & Ernst v. Reedus, 260 So.2d 258 (Fla. App. 3d 1972); see also Trawick’s Fla. Practice & Procedure, 1975 ed., §§ 16-3 and 16-10.

Accordingly, certiorari is denied as to petitioners Danieli Corporation and Dani-eli Marketing.² Certiorari is granted as to petitioner Martino and the challenged order is quashed insofar as it denies protection of the income tax returns of petitioner Martino.

CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur. WALDEN, C. J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 So. 2d 426, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danieli-corp-v-russo-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack