Sun-Crete of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Deck Products, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sun-Crete of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Deck Products, Inc.

472 So. 2d 520, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1534, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14918

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1224

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 472 So. 2d 520 (Sun-Crete of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Deck Products, 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

Sun-Crete of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Deck Products, Inc., 472 So. 2d 520, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1534, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14918 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects but find the evidence which was before the trial court to be too speculative to support the compensatory fine of $330,000 for contempt. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction for rehearing solely. upon the question of the amount of the compensatory fine. The parties may, of eourse, engage in further prehearing discovery.

It is not our intent to place appellees in a Catch 22 position by requiring them to meet their burden against recalcitrant parties which, or who, refuse to produce or disclose discoverable information. We feel comfortable that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide adequate sanctions to handle any further problems that may arise in this area.

DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects but find the evidence which was before the trial court to be too speculative to support the compensatory fine of $330,000 for contempt. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction for rehearing solely. upon the question of the amount of the compensatory fine. The parties may, of eourse, engage in further prehearing discovery.

It is not our intent to place appellees in a Catch 22 position by requiring them to meet their burden against recalcitrant parties which, or who, refuse to produce or disclose discoverable information. We feel comfortable that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide adequate sanctions to handle any further problems that may arise in this area.

DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 So. 2d 520, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1534, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-crete-of-florida-inc-v-sun-deck-products-inc-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack