Interlocutory Review

344 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Burkhart v. Leonora Forney Burkhart
  141 Fla. 450· Fla.· 1940-01-26 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a motion to dismiss an appeal in a domestic relations case, holding that while Rule 34 prescribes orderly procedures for reviewing interlocutory orders, it does not deprive litigants of the right to have such orders reviewed when the court has alr
• State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Sheppard
  268 So. 3d 1006· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-04-29 ·cited 8×
  State Farm Florida Insurance Company appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to compel appraisal in a water damage insurance dispute. The court reversed, holding that where an insurer admits coverage for some portion of a loss, appraisal is the appropriate mechanism to res
• Andreas Keck v. Ashleigh K. Eminisor
  46 So. 3d 1065· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-10-25 ·cited 8×
  A bus driver claimed immunity from personal liability under Florida's sovereign immunity statute (section 768.28(9)(a)) after allegedly negligently striking a pedestrian while driving a public transit bus. The trial court denied his summary judgment motion, finding his employer w
• Harris v. State
  766 So. 2d 1239· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-09-25 ·cited 8×
  Morris Harris, facing civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, petitioned for certiorari review of the circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss the commitment petition. The First District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding t
• Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Agency FOR Health Care Admin. & Wuesthoff Mem'l Hosp., Inc.
  731 So. 2d 51· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-03-23 ·cited 8×
  Holmes Regional Medical Center petitioned for immediate review of a preliminary administrative order denying its motion in limine to exclude expert testimony based on alleged trade secret privilege. The court denied the petition, holding that interlocutory review was not necessar
• State v. Fudge
  645 So. 2d 23· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-10-14 ·cited 8×
  The State of Florida appealed a trial court's order granting a new trial to Robert Allen Fudge after a jury deadlocked on most counts of a 47-count indictment arising from automobile hijackings and home invasions. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the jury deadlock was n
• Allied Educ. Corp. v. State
  573 So. 2d 959· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-01-18 ·cited 8×
  Allied Education Corporation challenged a cease and desist order issued by the Board of Independent Postsecondary Vocational Schools that effectively shut down its Barclay Career School without providing required procedural safeguards. The court held that while the statute author
• In re Willy
  831 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it would not intervene in the administrative process to review a discovery dispute, as extraordinary circumstances and irreparable injury were not shown.
• Aluminum Co. OF Am. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  790 F.2d 938· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 8×
  A rail shipper lacks standing to seek judicial review of the ICC's dismissal of a rail carrier's petition for review of a state commission decision, and the ICC's assertion of original jurisdiction is not final agency action.
• In re Newman
  782 F.2d 971· Fed. Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its discretionary authority by authorizing testing procedures that lacked fundamental fairness and departed from standard Rule 34 safeguards, potentially causing irreparable harm.
• United States v. Crawford Enters., Inc.
  754 F.2d 1272· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that interlocutory review of a denial of a Speedy Trial Act claim is unavailable, and mandamus relief is not appropriate.
• Sierra Vista Hosp., Inc. v. The United States
  639 F.2d 749· Ct. Cl.· 1981-01-14 ·cited 8×
  A law firm is not disqualified when former government attorneys who had only tangential or no involvement with a specific case join the firm, provided effective screening measures are in place to isolate them from the case.
• Consol. GAS Supply Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  611 F.2d 951· 4th Cir.· 1979-12-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction against administrative proceedings, as exclusive review of Commission orders lies with the circuit courts of appeals. Furthermore, Consolidated's petition for review was dismissed for failing to rai
• Gen. Dev. Corp. v. The Fla. Land & Water Adjudicatory Comm'n
  368 So. 2d 1323· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-03-09 ·cited 8×
  This case involves General Development Corporation (GDC) seeking interlocutory review of a "Comprehensive Prehearing Order" issued by a hearing officer. The order determined the scope and nature of an administrative hearing concerning a development order for a portion of GDC's "M
• The Toro Co. & Toro Sales Co. v. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop
  565 F.2d 998· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had the power to sever a count and transfer it, and that its action was not so arbitrary as to warrant mandamus review.
• Raulerson v. Finney
  280 So. 2d 484· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-07-17 ·cited 8×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court's discovery order requiring production of all witness statements without applying the proper legal standards. The court held that such blanket discovery orders violate the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which require
• Belfer v. Pence
  435 F.2d 121· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that extraordinary writs are not appropriate for reviewing interlocutory discovery orders unless they represent a usurpation of authority not correctable on appeal.
• Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Jewell Elder and David S. Elder
  187 So. 2d 82· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's broad order compelling production of documents, including those potentially protected by the work product rule, was an abuse of discretion warranting certiorari review.
• Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Hon. Casper Platt
  314 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1963-02-27 ·cited 8×
  A district court's denial of a motion to transfer a criminal case under Rule 21(b) based on speculation about jury impartiality in the transferee district constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Flagler Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami v. Whiting
  148 So. 2d 555· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-01-09 ·cited 8×
  Flagler Federal Savings and Loan Association petitioned for writs of certiorari to overturn an interlocutory order denying its motion to consolidate two related civil actions. The court held that certiorari is inappropriate for reviewing interlocutory orders in actions at law abs
• Burr v. Powell
  63 Fla. 379· Fla.· 1912-01-01 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an interlocutory order denying a motion to strike an amended answer in a mortgage foreclosure action. The court held that affirmative defenses based on the statute of limitations may be included in an amended answer in equity, and that successiv
• Vericker v. Powell
  343 So. 3d 1278· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-08-10 ·cited 7×
  The appellate court declined to expand its certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial court's denial of a summary judgment motion based on Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute. The court certified conflict with other districts and referred the issue to the Florida Bar's appellate rules co
• People OF the State OF Cal. v. Mesa
  813 F.2d 960· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), applies to all federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether they have a specific federal defense.
• United States v. Smith
  750 F.2d 1215· 4th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court properly construed the Classified Information Procedures Act and that its admission of classified evidence complied with Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.
• In re Cragar Indus., Inc.
  706 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a transferee court should not re-transfer a case absent unforeseen events frustrating the original transfer purpose, and found no such events here.
• The Legal AID Soc'y OF NEW York & Anthony F. Marra v. Hon. William B. Herlands
  399 F.2d 343· 2d Cir.· 1968-06-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy not warranted for compelling a trial judge to relieve counsel, especially when the client has sued his attorneys.
• Meckler v. Hecht Rubber Corp.
  190 So. 2d 186· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-09-27 ·cited 7×
  Petitioner sought a writ of common law certiorari to review an interlocutory order vacating a summary judgment in his favor. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that certiorari was unavailable because petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal from final judgment, and ther
• Hedden v. Z Oldco, LLC
  301 So. 3d 1034· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-10-30 ·cited 6×
  Terry P. Hedden, Jr. appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to compel arbitration of a declaratory judgment action filed by Z Oldco regarding whether Hedden violated a Non-Compete Agreement and whether an Exit Bonus under a Compensation Agreement is due. The court reverse
• Walker v. Fla. GAS Transmission Co., LLC
  134 So. 3d 571· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-03-27 ·cited 6×
  Property owners appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to enforce a tree-replacement obligation contained in an order of taking. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the denial of the motion was a non-final order not subject t
• Jimenez v. Rateni
  967 So. 2d 1075· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the circuit court erred in interpreting the local rule to geographically limit the assignment of county court civil appeals, and that the rule requires random assignment to all circuit judges in the division.
• Sunrise Gift & Souvenir, Inc. v. Marcotte
  698 So. 2d 345· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-15 ·cited 6×
  Petitioners sued by firefighters and estates of deceased firefighters sought certiorari review of an order denying their summary judgment motions based on the Fireman's Rule. The court held that the Fireman's Rule does not provide immunity from suit like qualified immunity and th
• Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Davis
  664 So. 2d 1025· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-11-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's order compelling discovery was a departure from the essential requirements of law because the requested information was irrelevant to the determination of GMAC's ownership status under the statute.
• Amilcar A.J. Marchetti v. Bitterolf
  968 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's stay order was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and thus the appeal should be treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Lieutenant Colonel Albertis Wilson v. The United States
  917 F.2d 529· Fed. Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court's disposition of the case is erroneous due to violations of stare decisis and misinterpretation of statutory language.
• Wash. Square Post #1212 Am. Legion v. Denis Maduro
  907 F.2d 1288· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their warrantless entry into the social club was lawful, despite the disputed issue of the club's actual admission policy.
• Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF Cal. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  814 F.2d 560· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) alleged failure to hold a hearing before adopting interim rate schedules because the rates had not yet received final confirmation from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
• In re The Complaint of Bankers Tr. Co. v. Honorable Charles R. Weiner
  775 F.2d 545· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that mandamus is inappropriate because the district court did not commit clear legal error by following the appellate court's mandate, even after petitioners withdrew their objections to prior testimony.
• Shoreham Coop. Apple Producers Ass'n, Inc. v. Donovan
  764 F.2d 135· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Department of Labor's adoption of a new methodology for calculating adverse effect wage rates (AERs) using BLS ES-202 data was not arbitrary or capricious, and was a proper exercise of agency discretion.
• Ramos v. State
  469 So. 2d 145· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-12 ·cited 6×
  A state's cross-appeal from a trial court ruling that evidence is insufficient to sustain a jury's guilty verdict is dismissed when the defendant voluntarily dismisses his main appeal before decision on the merits, because the state lacks independent appellate authority over the
• In re Sewell
  690 F.2d 403· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state law claim for tortious interference with contract against an employer's president for actions taken to challenge union certification is preempted by federal labor law, and thus the action must be dismissed.
• Morris v. Diamond
  634 F.2d 1347· C.C.P.A.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate because the petitioner has not demonstrated a clear abuse of discretion or irreparable injury, and the admissibility of testimony is appealable after a final decision.
• In re Stone
  569 F.2d 156· D.C. Cir.· 1978-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Tax Court because it does not have appellate jurisdiction over the underlying case.
• State v. Honorable John J. Crews
  241 So. 2d 754· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-12-08 ·cited 6×
  The State Attorney sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial judge's order requiring the State to produce a traffic homicide investigation report prepared by the Florida Highway Patrol for defendant's inspection and copying. The appellate court denied the petition, holding
• Japan Line, Ltd. v. Sabre Shipping Corp.
  407 F.2d 173· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that interlocutory review of the primary jurisdiction issue should not be entertained at this stage, as it would not materially advance the litigation's termination.
• Gollsneider v. Stein
  214 So. 2d 628· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-10-16 ·cited 6×
  Petitioners sought a writ of common law certiorari to review a trial court's discovery order requiring production of income tax returns in a personal injury action. The District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and th
• Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Duval Connecting R.R. Co.
  193 So. 2d 19· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-11-08 ·cited 6×
  Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company and Chase Manhattan Bank sought a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order in a condemnation case that determined a railroad crossing easement must be taken at grade level rather than above grade. The Florida District Court
• Gottlieb v. Town OF Surfside
  115 So. 2d 25· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-10-15 ·cited 6×
  The Town of Surfside appealed a decree that found its zoning ordinance arbitrary, unreasonable, and void as applied to the appellee's property, directing the Town to reclassify the property for office building use.
• Sirman v. Conklin
  154 Fla. 304· Fla.· 1944-03-24 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a petition for rule certiorari seeking review of an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss, holding that the petition was filed beyond the 60-day statutory period required for appellate review and that appellate jurisdiction is statuto
• Lorenz v. Lea G. Lorenz
  152 Fla. 779· Fla.· 1943-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that certiorari is not an appropriate remedy to review a final decree in equity when the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal. The Court denied a petition for certiorari seeking to review a final decree vacating a prior divorce decree.
• Ammy M. kogan v. Mildenberger
  127 So. 3d 831· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-11-27 ·cited 5×
  Kogan appeals a trial court order granting Mildenberger's motion for entry of default judgment on liability only. The Third District Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that orders determining liability are not immediately appealable under Flori