De Larocha v. Ferrari

District Court of Appeal of Florida

De Larocha v. Ferrari

43 So. 3d 873, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12910, 2010 WL 3447211

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 2010

DocketNo. 5D10-916

StatusPublished

This text of 43 So. 3d 873 (De Larocha v. Ferrari) 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

De Larocha v. Ferrari, 43 So. 3d 873, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12910, 2010 WL 3447211 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWAYA, J.

Petitioners seek certiorari review of a circuit court order requiring Petitioner, Amparo R. De Larocha, to submit to a compulsory medical examination in the presence of a videographer hired by and acting on behalf of counsel for Respondents. Pursuant to this court’s recent decision in Prince v. Mallari, 36 So.3d 128 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), we conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law and that Petitioners will suffer irreparable harm. We note, parenthetically, that Respondents confess error based on Prince. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order under review.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

MONACO, C.J. and TORPY, J., concur.

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

SAWAYA, J.

Petitioners seek certiorari review of a circuit court order requiring Petitioner, Amparo R. De Larocha, to submit to a compulsory medical examination in the presence of a videographer hired by and acting on behalf of counsel for Respondents. Pursuant to this court’s recent decision in Prince v. Mallari, 36 So.3d 128 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), we conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law and that Petitioners will suffer irreparable harm. We note, parenthetically, that Respondents confess error based on Prince. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order under review.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

MONACO, C.J. and TORPY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 So. 3d 873, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12910, 2010 WL 3447211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-larocha-v-ferrari-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack