Schefsky v. Matthews

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schefsky v. Matthews

965 So. 2d 1274, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 16140, 2007 WL 2962597

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 2007

DocketNo. 5D07-718

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 965 So. 2d 1274 (Schefsky v. Matthews) 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

Schefsky v. Matthews, 965 So. 2d 1274, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 16140, 2007 WL 2962597 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, Harvey W. Schefsky, M.D. and North Seminole Family Practice Associates, P.A., seek certiorari review of a sanction order issued by the trial court that excluded a witness and struck a defense. Because this non-final order does not meet the criteria for certiorari review, we deny the petition.

Certiorari review of a non-final order is appropriate only when the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal. See Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So.2d 214 (Fla.1998). Certiorari review of the present sanction order is not appropriate, because the petitioners have an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

PALMER, C.J., MONACO and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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