CORBETT MOTOR SUPPLY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY OF ORLANDO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CREATED BY AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 4th DCA | 1971-02-17
No. 70-136
CROSS, C. J., REED, J., and McCAIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge, concur.
245 So. 2d 93 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Eminent Domain

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eminent Domain cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

In an opinion filed November 6, 1970, we reversed an order of the circuit court requiring petitioner, condemnee in an eminent domain proceeding, to produce for inspection and copying or photographing appraisals, reports, work sheets, data and other information gathered by its appraisers.

By petition for rehearing, respondent has brought to our attention the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Pinellas County v. Carlson et al., 242 So.2d 714, filed December 9, 1970.

Specifically we are referred to the following language in that opinion:

“ * * * The fair rule is that the State may not initiate discovery in condemnation cases, except as a reciprocal right in those cases when the condemnee has elected to discover the State’s work product. Those condemnees who do not wish to explore the State’s information should not be exposed to discovery; the policies underlying the Shell decision cannot logically be extended to reach such a result * * *
“ * * * the State’s interest is sufficiently and fairly protected if its right of discovery is restricted to those cases in which the condemnee has elected to seek discovery under Shell.”

Since the fact situation contemplated by the Supreme Court in Pinellas County v. Carlson is precisely the same as the situation in the case at bar, the petition for rehearing is granted without oral argument and our opinion of November 6, 1970, is withdrawn. Moreover, as it now appears that petitioner has not demonstrated a departure from the essential requirements of law, certiorari is denied.

Certiorari denied.

CROSS, C. J., REED, J., and McCAIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge, concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Golden Prince, Inc., 38 Fla. Supp. 190 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1973)
    …discovery. In our case, the condemnees have not sought such discovery. The Carlson case has been more recently followed in the City of Miami v. Culbertson case, 263 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d Dist. 1972), and Corbett Motor Supply, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 245 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th Dist. 1971). The plaintiff argued that the new Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.280(b), dictate a contrary result. The court disagrees. Rule 1.280(b) reads in pertinent part — “(b) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order o…
  • Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Florian, 39 Fla. Supp. 159 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1973)
    …r from the defendant-condemnees such information as to the nature and extent of the testimony and conclusions (including valuation) of the experts of the said defendants. Accordingly, said motions to compel are denied. RCP 1.280(b); 242 So. 2d 714; 245 So. 2d 93; 263 So. 2d 245.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw