Norris v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.

324 So. 2d 108
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 16, 1975
Docket75-1009
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 324 So. 2d 108 (Norris v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.) 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
Norris v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel., 324 So. 2d 108 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

324 So.2d 108 (1975)

Lori S. NORRIS et al., Petitioners,
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 75-1009.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 16, 1975.

*109 Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy and Glenn P. Falk, Miami, for petitioners.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl and Stephen A. Edelstein, Miami, for respondent.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We are presented with a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order of the circuit court transferring a personal injury action from the circuit court to the county court upon the ground that the amount claimed in good faith does not reach the jurisdictional limit of the circuit court. See Fla. Stat. § 26.012 and § 34.01. Review of an order transferring is proper under a petition for certiorari. Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, Fla.App. 1960, 120 So.2d 59, 78 A.L.R.2d 1199.

There is no doubt that the rule to be applied in determining the jurisdiction of a court as to the amount involved is the amount claimed in good faith. Rocco v. Coffey, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 21. There may be a basis in this record for a belief that the plaintiff exaggerated her claim but it cannot be said that such a conclusion appears without issue. It is not our purpose to preclude by this opinion a transfer if later developments in this case substantiate the trial judge's conclusion in the order appealed. Nevertheless, under the rule as stated in Castellano v. Bader Bros. Van Lines, Inc., Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 842, we are compelled to quash the order transferring the cause with directions to the circuit court to proceed with the cause.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

SHERRI DIAMOND v. ELVIS TOWING, INC.
268 So. 3d 249 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
White Const. Co., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp.
860 So. 2d 1064 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance v. Aleman
765 So. 2d 754 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Grunewald v. Warren
655 So. 2d 1227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Soler v. Independent Fire Ins. Co.
625 So. 2d 905 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Johnson v. Wander
592 So. 2d 1225 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Jennings v. Dade County
589 So. 2d 1345 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Krueger v. Wear
498 So. 2d 578 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
METROPOLITAN DRYWALL SYS. v. Dudley
472 So. 2d 1345 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Ross v. Barnett
436 So. 2d 1040 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Phillips v. Cutler
388 So. 2d 48 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
324 So. 2d 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-southern-bell-tel-tel-fladistctapp-1975.