FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
THE CELOTEX CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Insurance Guaranty Association sought a writ of certiorari to challenge a trial court's denial of its motion to disqualify opposing counsel. The court granted certiorari, finding the trial court erred by blindly following an earlier unpublished denial of certiorari rather than addressing the disqualification motion on the merits.
A denial of certiorari without written opinion has no precedential value and cannot be construed as passing on the merits of a dispute. The trial court erred by failing to address the motion to disqualify on its merits and instead merely deferring to the earlier unpublished decision. The case must be remanded for a hearing on the merits of the disqualification motion.
[1] A denial of a petition for writ of certiorari without a written opinion has no precedential value and does not pass upon the merits of the underlying dispute.
[2] A trial court errs when it denies a motion to disqualify counsel based on the mistaken assumption that it is bound by a prior denial of certiorari without opinion.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a denial of certiorari without written opinion is without precedential value and such cannot be construed as passing upon the issues or merits of the dispute”
Establishes that unpublished denials of certiorari have no binding effect and trial courts cannot simply rely on them without independent analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court had denied petitioner's motion to disqualify respondent's attorneys. Petitioner argued that respondent's current attorneys had previou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidential Information cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. It is addressed to a trial court order which denied petitioner’s motion to disqualify respondent’s attorneys.
Earlier there had been a similar dispute in litigation between the parties in Hillsbor-ough County. There the denial of the motion to disqualify attorneys was presented to the Second District Court of-Appeal. That court simply denied the petition for writ of certiorari without written opinion.
In the instant case the trial court erred when it denied the motion to disqualify, not on the merits, but rather upon the mistaken assumption that it had no alternative but to follow the earlier decision of the Second District Court of Appeal denying certiorari without written opinion. We grant certiorari, quash the order in question, and remand for consideration of the motion to disqualify upon the merits. We do this upon authority of Don Mott Agency, Inc. v. Harrison, 362 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), and Bing v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 498 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), which cases basically hold that a denial of certiorari without written opinion is without precedential value and such cannot be construed as passing upon the issues or merits of the dispute.
We note that the gravaman of the motion to disqualify was that respondent’s attorneys had earlier represented petitioner in matters similar to the instant litigation. This representation, according to petitioners, allowed respondent’s current attorneys to acquire vast amounts of confidential information related to the issues and that this circumstance would be extremely prejudicial to petitioner. These allegations if substantiated would amount to a crucial conflict of interest which should not be tolerated. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the ruling in question represented a departure from the essential requirements of law with prejudice to petitioner that cannot be remedied upon plenary appeal.
Certiorari is granted; the order in question is quashed, and the matter is remanded for a hearing upon the merits as concerns petitioner’s motion to disqualify.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Degrasse v. Wertheim, 566 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…TION FOR CLARIFICATION We grant the motion for clarification. It is well settled that a denial of certiorari without a written opinion cannot be construed as passing on the merits of the dispute. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass’n. v. Celotex Corp., 547 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The concurrence in the order dated February 15, 1990 does no more than make explicit what is implicit in the panel’s ruling. BASKIN, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Eldon Davis, 610 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…DER QUASHED. DOWNEY, POLEN, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur. . A denial of certiorari without a written opinion cannot be construed as passing on the merits of the dispute. Florida Insurance Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 547 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).…
Authorities Cited
- DON Mott Agency, Inc. v. Harrison, 362 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Bing v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 498 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)