DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIAN P. PATCHEN, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' appeal of a stay order in an inverse condemnation action for citrus canker tree destruction was treated as a petition for certiorari and denied.
A stay of an inverse condemnation action pending resolution of a related class action is reviewable by certiorari, not as an appeal from a non-final order granting an injunction.
[1] Certiorari, not appeal under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure section 9.130(a)(3)(B), is the proper procedure for reviewing a non-final order granting a stay of proce…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services sought to destroy citrus canker exposed trees, and an individual filed an inverse condemnation act…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services seeks review of a non-final order granting a stay of an individually filed inverse condemnation action, for the destruction of citrus canker exposed trees, pending a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a related class action on which it appears the briefing recently has been completed. The Department characterizes the order under review as “in the nature of an injunction” and therefore seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 9.130(a)(3)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari but deny the relief sought.1
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodenow v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 305 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
-
Stok & Assocs., P.A. v. Citibank, N.A., 58 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…s motion to compel binding arbitration. Because we conclude that the order granting the stay is a non-final, non-appealable order, we treat Stok’s initial brief as a petition for writ of certio-rari, see Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Patehen, 25 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), and we deny the petition. On December 12, 2008, Stok sued Citibank in state court. After answering the complaint and asserting an affirmative defense, Citibank moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties’ contract. Stok…
Authorities Cited
- Pilevsky v. Morgans Hotel Grp. Mgmt., LLC, 961 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Zola Klein v. The Royale Grp., Ltd., 524 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Transcon. Realty Corp. v. The Honorable Boyce F. Ezell, Jr., 365 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Clark v. State, 365 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)