Lovi v. North Shore Bank, s. 61-225
| Decision Date | 08 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 61-225,61-226,s. 61-225 |
| Parties | Art LOVI, Appellant, v. NORTH SHORE BANK, a Florida banking corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellant.
Patton & Kanner, Miami, for appellee.
Before HORTON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The above causes both seek review of a combined order of a circuit judge in a common law action, striking three paragraphs of the plaintiff's complaint, granting a summary judgment as to punitive damages and as to compensatory damages sought in the stricken paragraphs, and transferring the cause to the Civil Court of Record. These appeals have previously been consolidated by order of this court with directions to proceed as a 'regular' appeal. This order was entered prior to the record on appeal being filed in this cause, pursuant to a stipulation by counsel. After examining the record, briefs and hearing oral argument, these actions seeking review of an interlocutory order in a common law action will be considered as petitions for certiorari, as authorized by § 59.45, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Tantillo v. Miliman, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 413; Kautzman v. Bandler, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 256; Easley v. The Garden Sanctuary, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 59, 78 A.L.R.2d 1199. The court's prior opinion, dated December 18, 1961 treating this review as a 'regular' appeal, has been withdrawn in lieu of this opinion.
Having considered the briefs, record on appeal and oral argument as a petition for certiorari to review the complained of order, it appears that the trial judge's order striking Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 from the complaint and awarding a summary judgment as to compensatory damages was erroneous. The motion to strike being addressed to the complained of paragraphs in their entirety, if any of the allegations contained in said paragraphs are relevant the motion to strike should have been denied. See: Mc Iver & McKay v. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 So. 545; Southern Turpentine Co. v. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424, 54 So. 385; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; Randall v. Mickle, 103 Fla. 1229, 138 So. 14, 141 So. 317, 86 A.L.R. 804; Batchelder v. Prestman, 103 Fla. 852, 138 So. 473; 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings, §§ 131, 132. An examination of the complained of paragraphs discloses that they do contain allegations which would be material to the compensatory loss alleged by the plaintiff and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage
...DCA 1967); But see Radio Communications Corp. v. Oki Electronics of America, Inc., 277 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Lovi v. North Shore Bank, 137 So.2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 143 So.2d 492 (1962). Orders granting discovery, on the other hand, have traditionally been reviewed by ......
-
Talmudical Academy of Baltimore v. Harris
...lesser jurisdictional amounts. See Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 59, 78 A.L.R.2d 1199; Lovi v. North Shore Bank, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 585. We elect to treat the notice of appeal in the present cause as a petition for certiorari. Article V. § 5(3), Florida Cons......
-
Doby v. Griffin
...should treat the notice of appeal and appellee's cross assignments of error as petitions for common law certiorari. Lovi v. North Shore Bank, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 585. 'We are at once confronted with the propriety of reviewing by certiorari an interlocutory order in an action at law. Our......
-
Ross v. Bowling
...order in an action formerly cognizable at law. We have elected to treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari. See Lovi v. North Shore Bank, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 585; Aetna Insurance Company v. Jordan, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d The order presented for review denied the plaintiffs' motion......