O'Brien v. Exposito

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Brien v. Exposito

824 So. 2d 954, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11408, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1787

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-2029

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 824 So. 2d 954 (O'Brien v. Exposito) 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

O'Brien v. Exposito, 824 So. 2d 954, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11408, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1787 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William O’Brien petitions this Court for writ of certiorari seeking to quash a trial court order that deferred ruling on the issue of whether O’Brien was entitled to qualified immunity. We grant the petition pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(2)(A), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (2001). Because qualified immunity protects a public official from having to defend a suit, see Tucker v. Resha, 648 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1994), O’Brien will effectively lose his entitlement to qualified immunity if the case proceeds to trial, thereby causing irreparable injury to O’Brien. By deferring ruling, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. The trial court is therefore required to either grant or deny O’Brien’s motion for summary judgment. O’Brien will then be entitled to appeal a denial of his claim for qualified immunity under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (2001).

We therefore grant the petition and remand with directions that the trial court enter an order determining O’Brien’s entitlement to qualified immunity.

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

PER CURIAM.

William O’Brien petitions this Court for writ of certiorari seeking to quash a trial court order that deferred ruling on the issue of whether O’Brien was entitled to qualified immunity. We grant the petition pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(2)(A), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (2001). Because qualified immunity protects a public official from having to defend a suit, see Tucker v. Resha, 648 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1994), O’Brien will effectively lose his entitlement to qualified immunity if the case proceeds to trial, thereby causing irreparable injury to O’Brien. By deferring ruling, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. The trial court is therefore required to either grant or deny O’Brien’s motion for summary judgment. O’Brien will then be entitled to appeal a denial of his claim for qualified immunity under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (2001).

We therefore grant the petition and remand with directions that the trial court enter an order determining O’Brien’s entitlement to qualified immunity.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 So. 2d 954, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11408, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-exposito-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack