STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
E. L. CLINE ET AL., 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.
This case involves a dissenting opinion arguing that damage to private property caused by road construction, even if due to negligence, does not constitute a constitutional 'taking' for which the State Road Department is liable, especially given its immunity from tort suits.
The dissenting judge believes the case sounds in tort and that the State Road Department, being immune from tort suits, should not be held liable for the alleged damages under the guise of a 'taking'.
The State Road Department contracted for road construction, and the plaintiff alleged that improper drainage and construction practices led to clay an…
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 Discovery Depositions cases and more on FLexlaw
A petition for Writ of Certiorari by the State Road Department seeks the quashal of an interlocutory order in an eminent domain proceedings. The order under attack permitted the respondents to take the discovery depositions of three appraisers, two of whom were court appointed appraisers. One of the two court appointed appraisers, as well as the third appraiser, were employed as experts by the petitioner.
*828The order here sought to be reviewed by petition for certiorari is one which comes within the exception to the rule that certiorari will not lie to review interlocutory orders in actions at law. See Brooks v. Owens, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 693, Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, Fla.App. 1957, 101 So.2d 408.
The fundamental question here is the correctness of the trial court order permitting the aforesaid discovery. We conclude that the information sought by respondents would be the work product of petitioner and should be protected. No showing has been made that the interests of justice would be thwarted by refusing discovery and that the information sought is not available to respondents from other sources. See State Road Department of Florida v. Shell, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 215. Cf. United States v. 7,534.04 Acres, D.C., 18 F.R.D. 146 and United States v. Certain Acres of Land, D.C., 18 F.R.D. 98.
The petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted and the order of the trial court dated March 29, 1960 is quashed.
CARROLL, CHAS., J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shell v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 135 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1961)…issue such writs in similar cases and have done so. See Goldstein v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Fla.App. 1960, 118 So. 2d 253; Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So. 2d 408; State Road Dept. of Fla. v. Cline, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So. 2d 827. I think they were correct in their view that they have this authority. The common law writ of certiorari is one issued or withheld in the discretion of the court. Appellate courts can review the discretionary acts of trial courts only where it is…
-
The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Fields, 262 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…board Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, supra note 1; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Allen, supra note 1. .See authorities cited supra note 2. . Ford Motor Company v. Havee (Fla.App.1960) 123 So. 2d 572; State Road Department v. Cline (Fla.App.1960) 122 So. 2d 827; State Road Department v. Shell (Fla.App.1960) 122 So. 2d 215; Boucher v. Pure Oil Company (Fla.App.1957) 101 So. 2d 408. . Haynes v. International Harvester Company, supra note 1.…
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, 123 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…information sought would defeat the interests of justice, nor has it been shown that the same information sought is not as readily available to the respondents as it was to the petitioner. Cf. State Road Department of Florida v. Cline, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 827. State Road Department of Florida v. Shell, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 215; Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., Fla.App.1957, 101 So. 2d 408. We therefore hold that the order for the production of the report was without authority under the Florida Rules of Civil…
Authorities Cited
- Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957)
- Boucher v. The Pure OIL Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. P. A. Shell et a!., 122 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)