CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPALITY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
WALLACE D. CULBERTSON 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.
The reciprocal right of a condemnor to seek discovery from a condemnee does not extend to other condemnees in the same action who have not initiated discovery themselves.
The City of Miami, a condemnor, sought discovery from a condemnee in an eminent domain action. One of the other condemnees had previously initiated di…
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 Reciprocal Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for writ of certiorari The City of Miami presents for review an order entered in an eminent domain action sustaining objection of a condemnee to interrogatories propounded to the condemnee by the city, relating to appraisal data work product.
The city’s action in eminent domain involved four parcels of land which were separately owned, and the owners of which were represented therein by separate counsel. One of the condemnees initiated such discovery against the city. Thereafter the city sought similar discovery from another of the condemnees who had not sought discovery from the city. In precluding the same, the trial court was eminently correct.
In Pinellas County v. Carlson, Fla.1971, 242 So.2d 714, the Supreme Court held that where a condemnee has availed himself of the right to have such a discovery from the condemnor the latter then reciprocally can have such discovery from the con-demnee. Therein, the Court said: “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 policy underlying the Shell decision [Shell v. State Road Department, Fla.1962, 135 So.2d 857] cannot logically be extended to reach such a result.” [Italics supplied.]
The question presented here is whether, when one of several condemnees in an action for eminent domain has initiated such discovery against the condemnor, the reciprocal right of the latter for discovery applies not only to that condemnee but to other condemnees in the cause who have not so acted. The trial court held that it does not, and we agree, on authority of Pinellas County v. Carlson, supra.
Certiorari is denied, and the petition is dismissed.
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)…k this type of discovery from the condemnor, the state (condemnor) may not initiate such 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)…
-
Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Florian, 39 Fla. Supp. 159 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1973)…ndant-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
- Shell v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 135 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1961)
- Pinellas Cnty. v. Carlson, 242 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1970)