Melendez v. Eversole

263 So. 3d 1140
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 18, 2019·No. No. 1D18-3534·Published

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

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

263 So. 3d 1140 (Melendez v. Eversole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Globe Newspaper Co. v. King
658 So. 2d 518 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
American Heritage Life Insurance Company v. Norma Jo Smith and DGT, Inc.
263 So. 3d 133 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)