Rosen v. Solomon
This text of 586 So. 2d 1348 (Rosen v. Solomon) 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.
Opinion
There is no doubt that the orders below appointing a “commissioner” — actually a master in flimsy semantic disguise — to resolve discovery disputes cannot be enforced in the face of the specific pre-hearing objections filed by the defendants-petitioners. Bathurst v. Turner, 533 So.2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); accord Wilson v. McKay, 568 So.2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (agreement to previous order of reference does not waive objection to subsequent order); Kuper v. Kuper, 564 So.2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, mandamus is granted requiring the trial court itself to hear and determine those matters. Bathurst, 533 So.2d at 939. The petitions are otherwise denied. The stays previously entered are vacated instanter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
586 So. 2d 1348, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13886, 1991 WL 205841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-solomon-fladistctapp-1991.