State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Quarles

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Quarles

560 So. 2d 358, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2882, 1990 WL 51720

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1751

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 560 So. 2d 358 (State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Quarles) 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

State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Quarles, 560 So. 2d 358, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2882, 1990 WL 51720 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION

GOSHORN, Judge.

Petitioner’s motion for clarification of our denial of its petition for certiorari is granted. The order granting respondents’ motion, for summary judgment entered in this cause totally disposes of the claim against the petitioner and will be directly appealable when a final judgment is entered. Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(k). The cases¹ cited in support of the petition for certiora-ri are inapposite as applied to the facts of this case.

Because the petitioner has an adequate remedy by way of appeal, certiorari is not [359]*359available. See, e.g., Bohan v. Cal, 524 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Vicorp Restaurants, Inc. v. Aridi, 510 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 519 So.2d 988 (Fla.1987); National Beverage Suppliers, Inc. v. Esquire Products of Florida, Inc., 493 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is

DENIED.

DANIEL, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION

GOSHORN, Judge.

Petitioner’s motion for clarification of our denial of its petition for certiorari is granted. The order granting respondents’ motion, for summary judgment entered in this cause totally disposes of the claim against the petitioner and will be directly appealable when a final judgment is entered. Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(k). The cases¹ cited in support of the petition for certiora-ri are inapposite as applied to the facts of this case.

Because the petitioner has an adequate remedy by way of appeal, certiorari is not [359]*359available. See, e.g., Bohan v. Cal, 524 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Vicorp Restaurants, Inc. v. Aridi, 510 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 519 So.2d 988 (Fla.1987); National Beverage Suppliers, Inc. v. Esquire Products of Florida, Inc., 493 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is

DENIED.

DANIEL, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 So. 2d 358, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2882, 1990 WL 51720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-automobile-mutual-insurance-co-v-quarles-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack