IN RE IN THE INTEREST OF K. J., AND R. J., CHILDREN. MRS. J. O. WILLIAMSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, AND RALPH P. JACKSON, APPELLEES
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 court held that the interlocutory appeal was not allowed under the Florida Appellate Rules and denied the petition for certiorari.
A witness, whose motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum was denied, appealed the trial court's order requiring production of trust documents. The witn…
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 Motion To Quash cases and more on FLexlaw
We treat this interlocutory appeal, brought by a witness, not a party, but whose motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum was denied, as a petition for certio-rari.
The trial court heard testimony that the support of two children of appellant’s son was dependent upon a trust fund established by the appellant, which she testified to as of substantial value. She declined to bring records or furnish any basis for the court’s evaluation of her testimony that the trust corpus was subject to her withdrawing her requirements, whatever they may be.
The trial judge entered an order requiring the production of the trust instrument and records pertaining to the trust. In addition, he entered an ordqr appropriately protecting the appellant against disclosure of the evidence so produced.
We think no case has been made out for our issuance of certiorari in this situation.
Appeal dismissed as not allowed under the Florida Appellate Rules. Treating the appeal papers as a petition for certiorari, certiorari is denied.
LILES and HOBSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bermil Corp. v. Sawyer, 353 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…based on the above and even absent the allegation and proof of actual fraud, it was not error for a jury to pierce the corporate veil and find Leeds liable on an alter ego theory. See Levenstein v. Sapiro, 279 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1973), conformed to at 282 So. 2d 11 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). As for Norman Morris, however, the partner of Leeds, it is our opinion that the record will neither factually nor legally support his individual liability on the usurious transaction. As was previously mentioned, Morris was broug…