Legal Opinion

Franklyn S., Inc. v. Riesenbeck

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 9, 1964No. 63-853PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarroll, Judge

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order in equity which quashed a subpoena duces tecum addressed to a party to the cause on the ground that “a subpoena duces tecum will not run to a party at time of trial.”

We are of the opinion that in so holding the chancellor was in error. Rule 1.34 of the 1954 Florida Rules of Civil *832Procedure, 30 F.S.A., which provides for issuance of witness subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, is the same as rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. In the absence of a square holding on the matter in Florida we may rely on the construction which…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Crary v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1946
  2. Cooper v. FultonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1960
  3. Brooker v. SmithDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959
  4. Metz v. SmithDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962
  5. United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1953

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pembroke Park Lakes, Inc. v. High Ridge Water Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  2. Grisillo v. Franklyn S., Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API