Harris v. Zeesman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harris v. Zeesman

445 So. 2d 680, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11846

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2425

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 445 So. 2d 680 (Harris v. Zeesman) 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

Harris v. Zeesman, 445 So. 2d 680, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11846 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, defendants in the trial court, seek a writ of certiorari to test the blanket denial of their motion to stay discovery. They contend that the trial court’s ruling constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law because it contravenes the basic principle “that discovery as to the accounting must be deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to the accounting is settled.” Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So.2d 551, 555 (Fla.1956). Without recounting each of the categories of items sought to be produced, suffice it to say that the trial court’s order fails to implement the foregoing principle. Consequently, on the authority of David v. Tansill, 297 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) and Armstrong v. Piatt, 201 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), we grant the writ of certiorari, quash the order on appeal and direct the trial court to reconsider defendants’ motion in accord with the case authority cited herein.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, defendants in the trial court, seek a writ of certiorari to test the blanket denial of their motion to stay discovery. They contend that the trial court’s ruling constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law because it contravenes the basic principle “that discovery as to the accounting must be deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to the accounting is settled.” Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So.2d 551, 555 (Fla.1956). Without recounting each of the categories of items sought to be produced, suffice it to say that the trial court’s order fails to implement the foregoing principle. Consequently, on the authority of David v. Tansill, 297 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) and Armstrong v. Piatt, 201 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), we grant the writ of certiorari, quash the order on appeal and direct the trial court to reconsider defendants’ motion in accord with the case authority cited herein.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 So. 2d 680, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-zeesman-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack