Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

418 So. 2d 307

Docket No. 82-924.

Aleshire v. Ackerman

Otis Carr ALESHIRE, Samuel Brian Aleshire and Allstate Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Richard Charles ACKERMAN, Respondent.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 21, 1982.

Rehearing Denied August 30, 1982.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1982-07-21

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-07-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 2003

3 state decisions

10198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*308 John G. Rooney, of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P.A., Daytona Beach, for petitioners.

¶2No appearance for respondent.

¶3

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

¶4DAUKSCH, Judge.

¶5Before us for consideration is a "Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Fifth District Court of Appeal." Of course, petitioner means to have the writ issued to the Circuit Court; we cannot issue the writ to our own court. We cannot issue an Order to Show Cause as contemplated in Rule 9.100(f) because the petition does not demonstrate a preliminary basis for relief. All that is before us are bare allegations that:

1. Petitioner seeks to have reviewed and quashed, in part, the Order of the Trial Court in Civil Action No. 81-1796-CA-01, Division B, entered on the 8th day of June, 1982, in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County, Florida.
2. This Petition is presented pursuant to Rule 9.100(c) (Fla.R.App.P.).
3. This Petition is presented because the effect of the above-mentioned Order is to deny the Petitioners their right to adequate discovery before trial which denial will result in significant injury to the Petitioners who will not be able to properly prepare for trial on the merits. The Order in effect denies the Petitioners right to discovery as provided by Rule 1.280 (Fla.R.Civ.P.).

¶6There is no appendix as required by the rule and we do not have even the vaguest notion as to "facts upon which the petitioner relies." Rule 9.100(e)(2). No argument and no citations of authority are offered as required under 9.100(e)(4). In fact we were not even furnished with the order sought to be quashed.

¶7WRIT DENIED.

¶8COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.

/418/so2d/307 · .json · Public domain