Sobel v. Goldman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sobel v. Goldman

481 So. 2d 991, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 262, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5995

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 1986

DocketNo. 85-522

StatusPublished

This text of 481 So. 2d 991 (Sobel v. Goldman) 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

Sobel v. Goldman, 481 So. 2d 991, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 262, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5995 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order denying appellants’ motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on them is a non-final order and is not among those non-final orders which may be appealed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130. If we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiora-ri, petitioners have not demonstrated any departure from the essential requirements of law, so they are not entitled to certiorari relief.

Appeal DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order denying appellants’ motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on them is a non-final order and is not among those non-final orders which may be appealed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130. If we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiora-ri, petitioners have not demonstrated any departure from the essential requirements of law, so they are not entitled to certiorari relief.

Appeal DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 So. 2d 991, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 262, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sobel-v-goldman-fladistctapp-1986.