ABE SCHONFELD ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
BARRICH TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
ABE SCHONFELD ET AL., APPELLANTS,
BARRICH TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
320 So. 2d 30
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1975)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Abe Schonfeld and Answer-Phone of Hollywood, Inc., have petitioned this court for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s denial of their motion for a mandatory injunction pendente lite. At the time of oral argument, it appeared that the remedy of an interlocutory appeal was available and the certiorari should be denied under the rule as stated in Eristavi-Tchitcherine v. Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Association, 1944, 154 Fla. 100, 16 So. 2d 730, at 735.
Thereupon, in proceeding to consider the merits of the cause, and now in treating the petition as an interlocutory appeal, we hold that no reversible error is shown. See Hines v. Dozer, Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 548.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cady v. Laws, 341 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…rt seeks foreclosure of a mortgage. Therefore a petition for writ of certiorari is not the proper vehicle to review that order. However, we shall treat this petition as in interlocutory appeal. Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc., 320 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We have reviewed the entire record furnished us and find the only reversible error to be the breadth of the order being reviewed. The court had the discretion to determine that under the circumstances of this case the deposition…
Authorities Cited
- Princess Vladimir Eristavitchitcherine v. Miami Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 154 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1944)
- Hines v. Hester Dozer, 134 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)