Melendez v. Eversole

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Melendez v. Eversole

263 So. 3d 1140

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 2019

DocketNo. 1D18-3534

StatusPublished

This text of 263 So. 3d 1140 (Melendez v. Eversole) 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

Melendez v. Eversole, 263 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

*1141Petitioners seek certiorari review of the order allowing Respondents to amend their counterclaim to assert a claim for punitive damages. In such a proceeding, the scope of our review is limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes. We, conversely, lack "jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence proffered to support the punitive damages claim." Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith , 263 So.3d 133, 2018 WL 5915019 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 13, 2018) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. King , 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995) and additional cases). Because the trial court complied with the applicable procedural requirements, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED .

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Jay, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

*1141Petitioners seek certiorari review of the order allowing Respondents to amend their counterclaim to assert a claim for punitive damages. In such a proceeding, the scope of our review is limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes. We, conversely, lack "jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence proffered to support the punitive damages claim." Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith , 263 So.3d 133, 2018 WL 5915019 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 13, 2018) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. King , 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995) and additional cases). Because the trial court complied with the applicable procedural requirements, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED .

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Jay, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 So. 3d 1140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melendez-v-eversole-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack