Mathews v. Kant

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 4, 1983

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-03-04

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 2018

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“some facts before the court tending to show the unreasonableness and oppressiveness”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 236 So. 3d 493 - Ferrandino v. Riley

Relies on Stowe v. Shults · 270 So. 2d 32 - Elkins Ford Sales, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-03-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1A court may not quash a subpoena issued pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.410(b) unless the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive and by necessary implication, there must be some facts before the court tending to show the unreasonableness and oppressiveness of the subpoena. The sufficiency thereof is a factual determination for the trial judge who is vested with broad judicial discretion in the matter, and whose order will not be overturned absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.

¶2We cannot 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).

¶3AFFIRMED.

OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur.