Parasailing Enterprises, Inc. v. Myers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parasailing Enterprises, Inc. v. Myers

659 So. 2d 1116, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7330, 1995 WL 396465

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1995

DocketNo. 95-00011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 659 So. 2d 1116 (Parasailing Enterprises, Inc. v. Myers) 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

Parasailing Enterprises, Inc. v. Myers, 659 So. 2d 1116, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7330, 1995 WL 396465 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners seek review of the trial court’s order denying their amended motion for substitution of counsel and admission of counsel pro hac vice. The respondents did not object to the substitution and the trial court made no finding that the substitution of counsel would interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court. Therefore, the denial of the motion for substitution was a departure from the essential requirements of law and we grant certiorari as to that ground. See Fisher v. State, 248 So.2d 479 (Fla.1971); Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown & Thompson v. Kleinschmidt, 498 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 500 So.2d 544 (Fla.1986). Because the trial court did not enter an order on the request for admission of counsel pro hac vice, we decline to address that issue.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted.

THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners seek review of the trial court’s order denying their amended motion for substitution of counsel and admission of counsel pro hac vice. The respondents did not object to the substitution and the trial court made no finding that the substitution of counsel would interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court. Therefore, the denial of the motion for substitution was a departure from the essential requirements of law and we grant certiorari as to that ground. See Fisher v. State, 248 So.2d 479 (Fla.1971); Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown & Thompson v. Kleinschmidt, 498 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 500 So.2d 544 (Fla.1986). Because the trial court did not enter an order on the request for admission of counsel pro hac vice, we decline to address that issue.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted.

THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

659 So. 2d 1116, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7330, 1995 WL 396465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parasailing-enterprises-inc-v-myers-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack