Legal Opinion

Metz v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 29, 1962No. 62-49PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

On certiorari we review a discovery order in a law action. Petitioner was the defendant and respondent was the plaintiff below, and they will be referred to as such herein. Plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries received in an automobile accident, alleging an authorized driver of defendant’s car negligently caused a collision. In a second count, a higher degree of negligence was alleged as a basis upon which to seek punitive damages. Defendant answered, admitting owning the car and lending it to the driver, but denying other allegations. Defendant averred the driver’s authorization…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thomas French & Sons, Ltd. v. Carleton Venetian Blind Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1939
  2. Sonken-Galamba Corporation v. Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1939
  3. Brooker v. SmithDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959
  4. Deep South Oil Co. of Texas v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
  5. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Loew's International Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Pembroke Park Lakes, Inc. v. High Ridge Water Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  2. Franklyn S., Inc. v. RiesenbeckDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1964
  3. McKinley v. ArpinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962
  4. Grisillo v. Franklyn S., Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1965
  5. Franklyn S., Inc. v. RiesenbeckDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API