Tretiakoff v. Triformation Systems, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tretiakoff v. Triformation Systems, Inc.

448 So. 2d 1255, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13152

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1984

DocketNo. 83-634

StatusPublished

This text of 448 So. 2d 1255 (Tretiakoff v. Triformation Systems, 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

Tretiakoff v. Triformation Systems, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1255, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13152 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the action of the trial court in imposing sanctions against the appellants for failure to comply with the rules of discovery and orders related thereto. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983). Also see Georges v. Insurance Technicians, Inc., 448 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We believe that the appellants were at least a day late and a dollar short in their inadequate and tardy attempt to avoid the imposition of sanctions by reliance upon an otherwise valid provision of international law. In light of the fact that much of the discovery sought was not precluded by the treaty provisions ultimately relied upon, and the inadequate and tardy manner that the treaty provisions were brought to the attention of the trial court, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in imposing sanctions. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the action of the trial court in imposing sanctions against the appellants for failure to comply with the rules of discovery and orders related thereto. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983). Also see Georges v. Insurance Technicians, Inc., 448 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We believe that the appellants were at least a day late and a dollar short in their inadequate and tardy attempt to avoid the imposition of sanctions by reliance upon an otherwise valid provision of international law. In light of the fact that much of the discovery sought was not precluded by the treaty provisions ultimately relied upon, and the inadequate and tardy manner that the treaty provisions were brought to the attention of the trial court, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in imposing sanctions. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 So. 2d 1255, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tretiakoff-v-triformation-systems-inc-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack