Horn & Hardart, Florida, Inc. v. Dietz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Horn & Hardart, Florida, Inc. v. Dietz

417 So. 2d 1039, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21202

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 1982

DocketNo. 82-876

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 417 So. 2d 1039 (Horn & Hardart, Florida, Inc. v. Dietz) 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

Horn & Hardart, Florida, Inc. v. Dietz, 417 So. 2d 1039, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21202 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for common law certio-rari. We conclude that a departure from the essential requirements of law has been demonstrated, grant the writ, and quash the order below. This case began in County Court and after service upon the defendant, a default occurred due to defense counsel’s failure to appear at a preliminary hearing. The County Court vacated the default finding excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. The Circuit Court reversed the County Court concluding that excusable neglect was not demonstrated as a matter of law. The matters presented to the trial court were essentially factual in nature, and it was up to the trial court (the County Court Judge) to make a determination of excusable neglect. This ruling is a discretionary one, and we conclude that the Circuit Court sitting in its appellate capacity erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the factual finder. The Circuit Court thus exceeded its scope of review.

Certiorari is hereby granted, the order of the Circuit Court quashed, and the matter remanded to the County Court for further proceedings.

BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for common law certio-rari. We conclude that a departure from the essential requirements of law has been demonstrated, grant the writ, and quash the order below. This case began in County Court and after service upon the defendant, a default occurred due to defense counsel’s failure to appear at a preliminary hearing. The County Court vacated the default finding excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. The Circuit Court reversed the County Court concluding that excusable neglect was not demonstrated as a matter of law. The matters presented to the trial court were essentially factual in nature, and it was up to the trial court (the County Court Judge) to make a determination of excusable neglect. This ruling is a discretionary one, and we conclude that the Circuit Court sitting in its appellate capacity erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the factual finder. The Circuit Court thus exceeded its scope of review.

Certiorari is hereby granted, the order of the Circuit Court quashed, and the matter remanded to the County Court for further proceedings.

BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 So. 2d 1039, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horn-hardart-florida-inc-v-dietz-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack