Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin
| Decision Date | 18 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2715,78-2715 |
| Citation | 370 So.2d 58 |
| Parties | CHALFONTE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Philip F. BEAUDOIN, d/b/a P. F. Beaudoin & Associates, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. Cameron Story, III, of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Robert A. Urban, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.
The trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. By Petition for Writ of Certiorari we are asked to review that order because petitioner contends that "the lower court's interlocutory Order denying Petitioner's Motion was clear error of such a character that the Fourth District Court of Appeal should correct it by the exercise of its discretionary power to issue a Common Law Writ of Certiorari."
This case does not warrant the writing of an opinion because the grounds for issuance of the common law writ of certiorari have been discussed in innumerable cases, many of recent vintage. 1 However, in the hope of stemming an ever increasing tide of unfounded petitions for certiorari we state once again that non-final orders not reviewable by interlocutory appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130 will not be reviewed by petition for common law certiorari unless the order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and to proceed without immediate review may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal is inadequate.
As we said in Siegel v. Abramowitz, infra n. 1, it would no doubt be expeditious for this court to resolve the issue presented at this point in time. However, we have persistently refused to alter the rule in the name of expedition. The appellate rule 2 provides for interlocutory review of certain non-final orders because it is essential that they be reviewed during the pendency of the case in the trial court. Generally, all other appellate review is postponed until the matter is concluded in the trial court for rather obvious reasons.
Following the appellate format set out in the rules and the case law governing this subject, it appears to us quite clearly that the issue presented by this petition is not properly one for review by writ of common law certiorari.
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. Resha
...See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987); Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93 (Fla.1983); Chalfonte Devel. Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In contrast with the federal procedural entitlement to interlocutory review of non-final orders denying summary......
-
Arvida Corp. v. Hewitt, 82-602
...counsel who will file same, are necessary. Second, the order in question is not reviewable by certiorari. Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA Third, this proceeding could be considered......
-
Margulies v. Gutierrez, 86-453
...So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). See also Cluster v. Scott, 474 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. ...
-
Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. Ryan, 80-1171
...F. Ryan of Ryan & Ryan, North Palm Beach, for respondent. LETTS, Chief Judge. Under the authority of Chalfonte Development Corporation v. Beaudoin, 370 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) we see no alternative but to deny the petition which denial is not a ruling on the merits. In truth we enterta......