Florida Department of Transportation v. Florian

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

Florida Department of Transportation v. Florian

39 Fla. Supp. 159

CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County

DecidedJune 8, 1973

DocketNo. 70-C-3728

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Fla. Supp. 159 (Florida Department of Transportation v. Florian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Florida Department of Transportation v. Florian, 39 Fla. Supp. 159 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

HUGH MacMILLAN, Circuit Judge.

After notice, this action came before the court on May 30, 1973, upon the plaintiff’s motion for order to require defendants, Berkeley K. Florian and Bertha Florian, his wife, to answer interrogatories propounded by plaintiff concerning parcel no. 426 (serial 323), the plaintiff’s motion for order to require defendant, Place au Soleil, Inc., to answer interrogatories propounded by plaintiff concerning parcel 428 (serial 324), argument of counsel, and, thereupon, the court finds as follows —

Inasmuch as the defendant-condemnees did not seek information as to the nature of the testimony of the plaintiff’s experts, but only their identities, the plaintiff under existing law is not entitled to discover from the defendant-condemnees such information as to the nature and extent of the testimony and conclusions (including valuation) of the experts of the said defendants.

Accordingly, said motions to compel are denied. RCP 1.280(b); 242 So.2d 714; 245 So.2d 93; 263 So.2d 245.

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

HUGH MacMILLAN, Circuit Judge.

After notice, this action came before the court on May 30, 1973, upon the plaintiff’s motion for order to require defendants, Berkeley K. Florian and Bertha Florian, his wife, to answer interrogatories propounded by plaintiff concerning parcel no. 426 (serial 323), the plaintiff’s motion for order to require defendant, Place au Soleil, Inc., to answer interrogatories propounded by plaintiff concerning parcel 428 (serial 324), argument of counsel, and, thereupon, the court finds as follows —

Inasmuch as the defendant-condemnees did not seek information as to the nature of the testimony of the plaintiff’s experts, but only their identities, the plaintiff under existing law is not entitled to discover from the defendant-condemnees such information as to the nature and extent of the testimony and conclusions (including valuation) of the experts of the said defendants.

Accordingly, said motions to compel are denied. RCP 1.280(b); 242 So.2d 714; 245 So.2d 93; 263 So.2d 245.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Fla. Supp. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-department-of-transportation-v-florian-flacirct11mia-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack