Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc.

320 So. 2d 30, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15388

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1975

DocketNo. 75-619

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 320 So. 2d 30 (Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc.) 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

Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc., 320 So. 2d 30, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Abe Schonfeld and Answer-Phone of Hollywood, Inc., have petitioned this court [31]*31for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s denial of their motion for a mandatory injunction pendente lite. At the time of oral argument, it appeared that the remedy of an interlocutory appeal was available and the certiorari should be denied under the rule as stated in Eristavi-Tchitcherine v. Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Association, 1944, 154 Fla. 100, 16 So.2d 730, at 735.

Thereupon, in proceeding to consider the merits of the cause, and now in treating the petition as an interlocutory appeal, we hold that no reversible error is shown. See Hines v. Dozer, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 548.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Abe Schonfeld and Answer-Phone of Hollywood, Inc., have petitioned this court [31]*31for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s denial of their motion for a mandatory injunction pendente lite. At the time of oral argument, it appeared that the remedy of an interlocutory appeal was available and the certiorari should be denied under the rule as stated in Eristavi-Tchitcherine v. Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Association, 1944, 154 Fla. 100, 16 So.2d 730, at 735.

Thereupon, in proceeding to consider the merits of the cause, and now in treating the petition as an interlocutory appeal, we hold that no reversible error is shown. See Hines v. Dozer, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 548.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 So. 2d 30, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schonfeld-v-barrich-telephone-answering-service-inc-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack