DUVAL COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND JESSE R. LEDBETTER, PETITIONERS,
v.
CAROLYN WILLIAMS, A MINOR, BY EARL WILLIAMS, HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, 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 District Court of Appeal denied certiorari, finding that the trial court's order striking paragraphs from the defendant's answer did not exceed its jurisdiction or violate essential legal requirements. The court noted that the defendant's prior actions in a related case had prevented the issues from becoming res judicata.
No, the trial court did not err. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or that the order violated essential legal requirements.
“It appears that the conduct of the petitioners in the first suit prevented the issues from becoming res adjudicata by having the trial court prevent the plaintiff therein from prosecuting such issues.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for why the res judicata defense was invalid.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners, defendants in the lower court, sought review of an order striking portions of their amended answer. In a prior suit between the same …
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 Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners seek review by certiorari of an order rendered by the trial court granting plaintiff’s (respondent’s) motion to strike paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of petitioners-defendants amended answer. It appears that the petitioners here, in a prior suit between the same parties, requested the trial court to limit the then plaintiff’s cause of action to things transpiring within certain specified dates, which dates excluded the happenings which form the basis of this suit. Now these petitioners are asking the trial court to hold that the plaintiff split this cause of action and also that the things complained of were res adjudicata.
It appears that the conduct of the petitioners in the first suit prevented the issues from becoming res adjudicata by having the trial court prevent the plaintiff therein from prosecuting such issues.
*733This cause has been orally argued before the court and the briefs and record have been read and given full consideration. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the trial court acted without and in excess of its jurisdiction or that the order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which there is no full, adequate, and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment available to petitioners. Certiorari is accordingly denied. Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, 101 So.2d 408 (Fla.App.1957); Pullman Company v. Fleishel, 101 So.2d 188 (Fla.App.1958); Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Timmons, 61 So.2d 426 (Fla.1952).
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wooten v. Nichola Rhodus, 470 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…first position asserted prevailed and controlled in the earlier litigation. See Grauer v. Occidental Life Insurance Co., 363 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1979); Duval County [*848] Hospital Authority v. Williams, 219 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). In such a case, a party is not permitted to assert in the answer or other pleadings a position contrary to the one taken in the earlier suit. 22 Fla.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver, § 52 (1980). Rhodus claimed in the first suit the…
-
Warner Cable Commc'ns, Inc. v. City OF Niceville, 581 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…in prior litigation, which works to the disadvantage of the opposing party. In such cases, such party is equitably estopped from asserting res judicata based upon the inconsistent position taken. Duval County Hosp. Auth. of Duval County v. Williams, 219 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Wooten v. Rhodus, 470 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Accord Grauer v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Calif., 363 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1979). The City initially claims that the affirmat…
-
Surf Colony Dock Ass'n, Inc. v. Vanderbilt Towers Unit # 1 OF Naples Ass'n, Inc., 708 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…er being able to obtain a ruling on claims based on that deed. See Acadia Partners, L.P. v. Tompkins, 673 So. 2d 487, 489-490 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 678 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1996); Duval County Hospital Authority of Duval County v. Williams, 219 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur. . In its first point on appeal, Surf Colony argues that we should reverse the summary judgment because the assoc…
Authorities Cited
- Boucher v. The Pure OIL Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952)
- The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)