Venus Laboratories, Inc. v. Katz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Venus Laboratories, Inc. v. Katz

557 So. 2d 110, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 695, 1990 WL 8678

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1783

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 557 So. 2d 110 (Venus Laboratories, Inc. v. Katz) 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

Venus Laboratories, Inc. v. Katz, 557 So. 2d 110, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 695, 1990 WL 8678 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants’ failure twice to satisfactorily answer the plaintiffs’ interrogatories did not justify striking their pleadings and entering a default against them. See Summit Chase Condominium Ass’n v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, the orders under review are reversed without prejudice to consideration of any appropriate lesser sanction.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants’ failure twice to satisfactorily answer the plaintiffs’ interrogatories did not justify striking their pleadings and entering a default against them. See Summit Chase Condominium Ass’n v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, the orders under review are reversed without prejudice to consideration of any appropriate lesser sanction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 110, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 695, 1990 WL 8678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venus-laboratories-inc-v-katz-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack