Watkins v. Mother's Auto Sales, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Watkins v. Mother's Auto Sales, Inc.

264 So. 2d 439, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6535

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 11, 1972

DocketNo. 72-285

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 So. 2d 439 (Watkins v. Mother's Auto Sales, 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

Watkins v. Mother's Auto Sales, Inc., 264 So. 2d 439, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6535 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brings this interlocutory appeal to review the lower court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories and the order requiring defendant to answer only those interrogatories propounded dealing with the transaction in litigation.

This court has meticulously reviewed all the interrogatories filed by plaintiff on December 29, 1971 to determine which ones defendant should be compelled to answer. A dual test was used requiring (1) that the interrogatories must narrow the issues, and (2) reach matters reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the pending action. The court has unanimously decided to compel answers to the following numbered interrogatories that were objected to by defendant: 10, 11, 12, 13, IS, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 32. A majority of the court has decided to compel answers to interrogatories 21 and 36. The court has unanimously agreed not to compel answers to interrogatories numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41. A majority has decided [440]*440not to compel an answer to interrogatory number 14.

It is so ordered, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brings this interlocutory appeal to review the lower court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories and the order requiring defendant to answer only those interrogatories propounded dealing with the transaction in litigation.

This court has meticulously reviewed all the interrogatories filed by plaintiff on December 29, 1971 to determine which ones defendant should be compelled to answer. A dual test was used requiring (1) that the interrogatories must narrow the issues, and (2) reach matters reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the pending action. The court has unanimously decided to compel answers to the following numbered interrogatories that were objected to by defendant: 10, 11, 12, 13, IS, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 32. A majority of the court has decided to compel answers to interrogatories 21 and 36. The court has unanimously agreed not to compel answers to interrogatories numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41. A majority has decided [440]*440not to compel an answer to interrogatory number 14.

It is so ordered, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 So. 2d 439, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-mothers-auto-sales-inc-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack