Widener v. Kellenberger

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Widener v. Kellenberger

147 So. 2d 545

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 1962

DocketNo. 3515

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 147 So. 2d 545 (Widener v. Kellenberger) 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

Widener v. Kellenberger, 147 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, defendants below, petition this court for certiorari seeking review of an interlocutory order at law denying their motion to dismiss counts two and three of plaintiff’s four count amended complaint. We have examined the briefs of the parties and the record in this cause to determine if there is any reason why this particular case should be entitled to what amounts to an interlocutory appeal at law and, secondly, whether the petitioner would have a full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment is rendered.

We have not found a significant difference between this case and other cases in which the courts have denied certiorari to review an interlocutory order refusing to dismiss a count or complaint in a common law action. See Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So.2d 188; Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corp., Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 30.

Certiorari denied.

SHANNON, C. J., and ALLEN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, defendants below, petition this court for certiorari seeking review of an interlocutory order at law denying their motion to dismiss counts two and three of plaintiff’s four count amended complaint. We have examined the briefs of the parties and the record in this cause to determine if there is any reason why this particular case should be entitled to what amounts to an interlocutory appeal at law and, secondly, whether the petitioner would have a full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment is rendered.

We have not found a significant difference between this case and other cases in which the courts have denied certiorari to review an interlocutory order refusing to dismiss a count or complaint in a common law action. See Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So.2d 188; Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corp., Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 30.

Certiorari denied.

SHANNON, C. J., and ALLEN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 2d 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widener-v-kellenberger-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack