Hirsch v. Clower & Demming

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hirsch v. Clower & Demming

759 So. 2d 720, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4998, 2000 WL 502522

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 2000

DocketNo. 5D99-2949

StatusPublished

This text of 759 So. 2d 720 (Hirsch v. Clower & Demming) 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

Hirsch v. Clower & Demming, 759 So. 2d 720, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4998, 2000 WL 502522 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John A. Hirsch and Roland W. Zoila petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order denying their motion to abate an action in the circuit court by respondents, Clower & Demming, Daytona Ophthalmic Services, P.A., d/b/a Daytona Ophthalmic Services (DOS). We grant the petition, [721]*721issue the writ, and quash the order of denial.

The action below was initiated by DOS against Hirsch and Zoila, and sought a declaratory judgment as to the legality of the same contracts involved in this court’s opinion in Hirsch v. DiGaetano, 732 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). DOS was also a party in that previous case and appealed after the complaint was amended in the circuit court to add DOS as a party. We previously ruled that an action involving the same issues and parties had been filed in a Massachusetts court and the principle of priority compelled that a -later filed Florida action be stayed. We have not changed our opinion.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, J.J., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John A. Hirsch and Roland W. Zoila petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order denying their motion to abate an action in the circuit court by respondents, Clower & Demming, Daytona Ophthalmic Services, P.A., d/b/a Daytona Ophthalmic Services (DOS). We grant the petition, [721]*721issue the writ, and quash the order of denial.

The action below was initiated by DOS against Hirsch and Zoila, and sought a declaratory judgment as to the legality of the same contracts involved in this court’s opinion in Hirsch v. DiGaetano, 732 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). DOS was also a party in that previous case and appealed after the complaint was amended in the circuit court to add DOS as a party. We previously ruled that an action involving the same issues and parties had been filed in a Massachusetts court and the principle of priority compelled that a -later filed Florida action be stayed. We have not changed our opinion.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

759 So. 2d 720, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4998, 2000 WL 502522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-clower-demming-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack