Interpace Corp. v. Pinellas County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Interpace Corp. v. Pinellas County

490 So. 2d 254, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1483, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8843

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1986

DocketNo. 86-1482

StatusPublished

This text of 490 So. 2d 254 (Interpace Corp. v. Pinellas County) 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

Interpace Corp. v. Pinellas County, 490 So. 2d 254, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1483, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8843 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Interpace Corporation petitions this court for a writ of certiorari. It seeks to quash an order of the circuit court denying its motion to compel answers to certain interrogatories. The petitioner’s objective was to identify certain documents allegedly in the possession of the respondent. In the order denying petitioner’s motion we note that the trial judge stipulated that she would consider a motion for an in camera inspection upon proper application by the petitioner. We therefore find no departure from the essential requirements of the law. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari without prejudice to petitioner seeking an in camera inspection by the circuit court.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Interpace Corporation petitions this court for a writ of certiorari. It seeks to quash an order of the circuit court denying its motion to compel answers to certain interrogatories. The petitioner’s objective was to identify certain documents allegedly in the possession of the respondent. In the order denying petitioner’s motion we note that the trial judge stipulated that she would consider a motion for an in camera inspection upon proper application by the petitioner. We therefore find no departure from the essential requirements of the law. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari without prejudice to petitioner seeking an in camera inspection by the circuit court.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 So. 2d 254, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1483, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interpace-corp-v-pinellas-county-fladistctapp-1986.