Prime Computer, Inc. v. Mulholland

571 So. 2d 515, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8523, 1990 WL 172808
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 9, 1990·No. No. 90-02024·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Prime Computer, Inc., petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court requiring it to furnish certain discovery to respondent Richard Mulholland. Mulholland has advised this court that he has withdrawn the contested discovery requests. Accordingly, that portion of the petition is now moot.

Prime Computer’s petition also asks this court to review a second order, entered contemporaneously with the discovery order, which denies its motion to dismiss counts I and II of Mulholland’s third amended complaint. Prime Computer asserts that the charges made therein are without merit and are “serious and damaging to Prime’s reputation.” Nevertheless, we are bound by the well-established principle that certiorari will not lie to review the denial of a motion to dismiss. See Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (1987).

Petition for certiorari denied.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

Prime Computer, Inc. v. Mulholland, 571 So. 2d 515, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8523, 1990 WL 172808 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

571 So. 2d 515 (Prime Computer, Inc. v. Mulholland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bap Newleaf, LLC v. Hillcrest Bank
198 So. 3d 656 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Halum v. Palm Beach County
571 So. 2d 515 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)