BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY), PETITIONER,
v.
GRADY CARTER AND MILDRED CARTER, RESPONDENTS.
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.
Brown & Williamson sought certiorari review of a trial court's denial of its summary judgment motion on post-1969 failure to warn claims in a cigarette injury case. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that denial of summary judgment is not reviewable via certiorari as it does not constitute irreparable harm.
The court held that denial of a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable through certiorari because it does not constitute irreparable harm and an adequate remedy exists through appeal from a final judgment.
[1] Denial of a motion for summary judgment is generally not reviewable by writ of certiorari as it does not constitute irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal fro…
[2] The time, trouble, and expense of an unnecessary trial do not constitute irreparable harm for the purpose of establishing certiorari jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We find relief is not warranted at this juncture because petitioners have not shown an injury which cannot be remedied on appeal from a final order.”
Establishes the core holding that certiorari is inappropriate because final appeal is an adequate remedy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents sued Brown & Williamson for personal injuries allegedly caused by cigarette smoking. The defendant sought summary judgment on all post-196…
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Through this timely petition for writ of certiorari, Brown & Williamson Corporation seeks review of a non-final order of the circuit court which denied its motion for summary judgment on certain claims of the plaintiffs. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition.
Respondents are plaintiffs in the trial court seeking to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by cigarette smoking. The defendant sought summary judgment on all post-1969 failure to warn claims, asserting they were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340. The trial court denied summary judgment, reasoning that, to the extent plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims relied upon the adequacy or inadequacy of communications unrelated to advertising or promotion, they remained viable. This theory, according to the defendants, was rejected in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992).
We find relief is not warranted at this juncture because petitioners have not shown an injury which cannot be remedied on appeal from a final order. Denial of a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss will not be reviewed through certiorari for this reason. See Vanco Const., Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 378 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Johnson v. Henningson, 370 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 383 So. 2d 1196 (Fla.1980). Petitioners argue that failure to correct this trial court error now will result in an unnecessary trial in this case and others because they will ultimately have to be retried as a consequence of the trial court’s error. This court, however, has found that the time, trouble, and expense of an unnecessary trial is not “irreparable harm” when determining whether the threshold elements of certiorari jurisdiction have been met. Continental Equities, Inc. v. Jacksonville Transp. Authority, 558 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Indeed, one of the decisions of this court upon which petitioner relies as demonstrating error in the trial court’s ruling shows that appeal from a final judgment can be' and is an adequate remedy. ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So. 2d 1194 (Fla.1995).
PETITION FOR .WRIT OF CERTIORA-RI DENIED.
BOOTH, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Rodriguez, 67 So. 3d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…, 566 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla.1990) '(stating that certiorari review may not ordinarily be had of an order denying a motion to dismiss because an eventual plenary appeal from the final judgment is available); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Carter, 680 So. 2d 546, 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“[Pjetitioners have not shown an injury which cannot be remedied on appeal from a final order. Denial of a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss will not be reviewed through certiorari for this reason. See Vanc…
-
Hans-Juergen Stoever and Karin Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…vage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987). The Stoever’s claim of irreparable harm caused by expenditure of time and money on an unnecessary trial and subsequent appeal is insufficient to justify certiorari review. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Carter, 680 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Lucas, 411 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). PETITION DENIED. DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Section 46.015(3) provides: The fact that a written release of covenant not to sue ex…
-
Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dunn, 751 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…f there was harm as a result of the trial court’s order denying a further cost bond, thht harm is financial only; financial harm is generally not sufficient harm to justify certiorari review. See generally Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Carter, 680 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (expense of unnecessary trial is not irreparable harm justifying certiorari relief); Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Construction Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (possibility court committed reversible err…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1992)
- Cont'l Equities, Inc. v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 558 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Vanco Constr., Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 378 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Johnson v. Henningson, 370 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)