Florida Power & Light Co. v. Goldberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Goldberg

738 So. 2d 506, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10728, 1999 WL 599224

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1999

DocketNos. 99-1194, 99-1198

StatusPublished

This text of 738 So. 2d 506 (Florida Power & Light Co. v. Goldberg) 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

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Goldberg, 738 So. 2d 506, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10728, 1999 WL 599224 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the petitioners, Florida Power & Light Co. (“FPL”) and David Ward, that the trial court’s order permitting post-trial discovery into matters wholly collateral and irrelevant to the proceedings below departs from the essential requirements of law. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b). Because Walter and Rosalie Goldberg, the plaintiffs below, are not prejudiced by FPL’s post-trial actions, see Walgreens, Inc. v. Newcomb, 603 So.2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 7 (Fla.1993), and because the petitioners would be materially injured by such discovery, the order entered below is hereby quashed. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995). FPL’s post-trial motions shall be addressed on their merits and any investigation into the post-trial behavior of FPL’s counsel should be conducted by the Florida Bar.

Certiorari granted; order quashed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the petitioners, Florida Power & Light Co. (“FPL”) and David Ward, that the trial court’s order permitting post-trial discovery into matters wholly collateral and irrelevant to the proceedings below departs from the essential requirements of law. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b). Because Walter and Rosalie Goldberg, the plaintiffs below, are not prejudiced by FPL’s post-trial actions, see Walgreens, Inc. v. Newcomb, 603 So.2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 7 (Fla.1993), and because the petitioners would be materially injured by such discovery, the order entered below is hereby quashed. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995). FPL’s post-trial motions shall be addressed on their merits and any investigation into the post-trial behavior of FPL’s counsel should be conducted by the Florida Bar.

Certiorari granted; order quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 So. 2d 506, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10728, 1999 WL 599224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-power-light-co-v-goldberg-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack