Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Cihak
| Decision Date | 12 July 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 7344,7344 |
| Citation | 201 So.2d 250 |
| Parties | GULF CITIES GAS CORPORATION, a corporation, Petitioner, v. Richard Leonard CIHAK and Judith Ann Cihak, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John T. Allen, Jr., of Mann, Harrison, Mann & Rowe, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
Robert Orseck, of Podhurst & Orseck, and Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson, Spence & Hicks, Miami, for respondents.
On or about November 4, 1965, Plaintiffs-Respondents Richard Leonard Cihak and Judith Ann Cihak filed their complaint, sounding in tort, in the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleged that plaintiffs received personal injuries as a result of an automobile accident on February 8, 1963, when a car, driven by one Thomas Spears as agent of Defendant-Petitioner Gulf Cities Gas Corporation, was negligently caused to collide with a vehicle in which plaintiffs were riding.
Defendant filed its answer and defenses on February 16, 1966, denying plaintiffs' allegations of negligence, pleading contributory negligence, and asserting the defense that one Dennis Huibregtse operated another motor vehicle in such a careless and negligent manner that his (Dennis Huibregtse) negligence solely caused the accident and the damages claimed by plaintiffs.
On August 8, 1966, almost six months after the filing of the answer, defendant filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 1.41, Fla.R.Civ.P., 30 F.S.A., for leave as third party plaintiff to serve a third party complaint upon Dennis Huibregtse on the ground that Dennis Huibregtse was liable for all or part of plaintiffs' claim against defendant.
On August 15, 1966, plaintiffs filed objections to defendant's motion for leave to serve a third party complaint, stating: that under no circumstances could a proper third party complaint be filed; that the fact that the third party 'may be liable to the plaintiffs directly' is not grounds for allowing a third party complaint; and that the motion was taken for the purpose of delay.
On August 19, 1966, a hearing was held on defendant's motion to join third party defendant, at which time the court denied defendant's motion. Subsequently the defendant filed petition for writ of certiorari.
The first question for our determination here is whether certiorari is the proper remedy. Certiorari is a discretionary writ issued only where the trial court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or where an interlocutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State, 64042
...State v. Williams, 237 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Marlowe v. Ferreira, 211 So.2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The majority opinion characterizes this Court's decision in State v. G.P. as having held "that no right of review by c......
-
R.L.B. v. State
... ... Ferreira, 211 So.2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Gulf Cities ... Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); State ... ...
-
State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Seville Place Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...material injury for the remainder of the trial (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal. See Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). While this traditional test is correct, the grammar of the test places the description of the appellate court's standard ......
-
Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc.
...in material injury for the remainder of the trial (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal. See Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). 2 While this traditional test is correct, the grammar of the test places the description of the appellate court's stan......