Hydrocarbon Trading & Transport Co. v. Ramco International, Inc.

488 So. 2d 175, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1178, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7934
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 21, 1986·No. No. 4-86-0574·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners filed a writ of certiorari claiming that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it denied the petitioners’ motion to compel discovery. We deny the petition because the petitioners have an adequate remedy on plenary appeal. See United States Fidelity & Guaranty v. Graham, 404 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied sub nom, Caldwell-Scott Construction Co., Inc. v. Graham, 419 So.2d 1195 (Fla.1982), petition for review dismissed, 419 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1982). Contra Young, Stem & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Smith, 416 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

DENIED.

GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

Hydrocarbon Trading & Transport Co. v. Ramco International, Inc., 488 So. 2d 175, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1178, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7934 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

488 So. 2d 175 (Hydrocarbon Trading & Transport Co. v. Ramco International, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. Edwards
528 So. 2d 951 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)