Legal Opinion

Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 16, 1979No. 78-2006PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

We originally requested a response to this petition for certiorari because we perceived the petition as containing substantial merit. However, upon consideration we note that the order refusing petitioners’ right to amend their complaint is interlocutory in nature, and petitioners will always have an adequate remedy to attack the propriety of the order by way of appeal from the final judgment. Pic v. Hoyt Development Co., Inc., 309 So.2d 586 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc., 287 So.2d 376 (Fla.2d DCA 1973).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is denied.

GRIMES, C.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973
  2. Pic v. Hoyt Development Co., Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Trucap Grantor Trust 2010-1 v. PeltDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
  2. Skyrme v. RJ REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANYDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011
  3. Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape CoralDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  4. Thomas MacHinery v. Ainsworth InternationalDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019
  5. Thomas Mach., Inc. v. Ainsworth Int'l, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API