Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral

369 So. 2d 969, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14096
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 16, 1979·No. No. 78-2006·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We originally requested a response to this petition for certiorari because we perceived the petition as containing substantial merit. However, upon consideration we note that the order refusing petitioners’ right to amend their complaint is interlocutory in nature, and petitioners will always have an adequate remedy to attack the propriety of the order by way of appeal from the final judgment. Pic v. Hoyt Development Co., Inc., 309 So.2d 586 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc., 287 So.2d 376 (Fla.2d DCA 1973).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is denied.

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

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

Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 369 So. 2d 969, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14096 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

369 So. 2d 969 (Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas Mach., Inc. v. Ainsworth Int'l, LLC
273 So. 3d 189 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Thomas MacHinery v. Ainsworth International
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Trucap Grantor Trust 2010-1 v. Pelt
84 So. 3d 369 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Skyrme v. RJ REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
75 So. 3d 769 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral
429 So. 2d 97 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)