Sea Escape Entertainment, Inc. v. Tropical Gaming, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sea Escape Entertainment, Inc. v. Tropical Gaming, Inc.

810 So. 2d 1006, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3273, 2002 WL 321900

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-4818, 4D01-5095

StatusPublished

This text of 810 So. 2d 1006 (Sea Escape Entertainment, Inc. v. Tropical Gaming, 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

Sea Escape Entertainment, Inc. v. Tropical Gaming, Inc., 810 So. 2d 1006, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3273, 2002 WL 321900 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of mandamus and quash the circuit court’s order of November 16, 2001, which expanded the powers of the special master beyond any consent of the petitioner that supported the June 25, 2001 order. See Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Camoto, 798 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Our conclusion that petitioner initially consented to the appointment of the special master is supported by the absence of any timely challenge to the order after its entry on June 25, 2001. One of the problems with the November 16, 2001 order is that it afforded the special master powers usually associated with a receiver. The record does not contain the evidentiary showing required for the appointment of a receiver. See Warrington v. First Valley Bank, 531 So.2d 986, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of mandamus and quash the circuit court’s order of November 16, 2001, which expanded the powers of the special master beyond any consent of the petitioner that supported the June 25, 2001 order. See Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Camoto, 798 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Our conclusion that petitioner initially consented to the appointment of the special master is supported by the absence of any timely challenge to the order after its entry on June 25, 2001. One of the problems with the November 16, 2001 order is that it afforded the special master powers usually associated with a receiver. The record does not contain the evidentiary showing required for the appointment of a receiver. See Warrington v. First Valley Bank, 531 So.2d 986, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

810 So. 2d 1006, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3273, 2002 WL 321900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sea-escape-entertainment-inc-v-tropical-gaming-inc-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack