Legal Opinion

Harris v. Zeesman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 22, 1984No. 83-2425PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Petitioners, defendants in the trial court, seek a writ of certiorari to test the blanket denial of their motion to stay discovery. They contend that the trial court’s ruling constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law because it contravenes the basic principle “that discovery as to the accounting must be deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to the accounting is settled.” Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So.2d 551, 555 (Fla.1956). Without recounting each of the categories of items sought to be produced, suffice it to say that the trial court’s order fails to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Charles Sales Corp. v. RovengerSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
  2. David v. TansillDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  3. Armstrong v. PiattDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of McCoyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  2. Zebouni v. TolerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API