ELKINS FORD SALES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Dade Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
  …ual basis of any complaints, or any information within the knowledge of any witness concerning the events surrounding the doctors’ allegedly improper treatment. See F.S. § 768.40(4), supra. . In Sunrise Shopping Center, Inc. v. Allied Stores Corp., 270 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) the court held that an opposing party had standing on behalf of a non-party witness to move to quash a subpoena duces tecum as unreasonable and oppressive. A fortiori, the non-party, as here, may do so himself.…
• Mathews v. Kant, 427 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
  …t say as a matter of law that the court abused its discretion in finding (impliedly) that the subpoena was unreasonable and oppressive. See Stowe v. Shults, 379 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and Sunrise Shopping Center, Inc. v. Allied Stores Corp., 270 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). AFFIRMED. OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur.…
• State Dep't of Transp. v. Saemann, 49 Fla. Supp. 199 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)
  …R. C. P., does authorize a method for quashing or modifying a subpoena duces tecum, but even in those cases the burden is upon the movant to show that it is unreasonable or oppressive. See Sunrise Shopping Center, Inc. v. Allied Stores Corporation, 270 So. 2d 32 (4th D. C. A. 1972). See also Fisher v. United States, 96 S. C. 1569, (U. S. Sup. Court 1976). In conclusion, the motion to quash is premature and inappropriate. Whether the . proper procedure is to move to quash the subpoena, move for a protective…