ANCHOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
EDUARDO TESINI
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.
Anchor Property and Casualty Insurance Company petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court discovery order issued in a case against Eduardo Tesini. The Third District Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in entering the challenged order.
The Third District Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of certiorari because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in entering the discovery order.
[1] To obtain certiorari relief, a petitioner must establish three elements: a departure from the essential requirements of law, resulting in material injury for the remainde…
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 intelligenceAnchor Property and Casualty Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a September 8, 2020 discovery order entered by the trial court in Miami-Dad…
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 Postjudgment Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1445 Lower Tribunal No. 18-39891 ________________
Anchor Property and Casualty Insurance Company,
Petitioner,
vs.
Eduardo Tesini,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., and David B. Shelton and Candy L. Messersmith (Orlando), for petitioner. Ver Ploeg & Marino, P.A., and Stephen A. Marino, Jr., and S. Alice Weeks, for respondent. Before SCALES, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Anchor Property and Casualty Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s September 8, 2020 discovery order. “To obtain certiorari relief, the petitioner must establish the following three elements: ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’” Rivero v. Farach, 247 So. 3d 632, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). We deny the petition because, in entering the challenged order, the trial court did not depart from the essential requitements of law. In re Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Miami Perfume Junction, Inc. v. Osborne, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D24, 2020 WL 7636020, at *2-3 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 23, 2020). “’Departure from the essential requirements of law’ is defined the same way across all uses of certiorari review: ‘a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’” Lacaretta Rest. v. Zepeda, 115 So. 3d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citations omitted).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tesini, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- Lacaretta Rest. & Zenith Ins. Co. v. Engelds Zepeda, 115 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Rivero v. Farach, 247 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tesini, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)