You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lewis, Vesogen & Rosenbach, P.A. v. A.C. Robertson II Construction, Inc.

Citations: 584 So. 2d 655; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9327Docket: No. 91-1631

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 11, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order requiring them to produce documents for which they claimed a retaining lien due to unpaid legal services rendered to the respondent. Upon review of the petition, responses, and replies, the court determined that the order deviates from essential legal requirements and could cause significant harm to the petitioners without a sufficient remedy on appeal, fulfilling the criteria for granting the writ. Citing precedents, the court granted the writ and quashed the trial court's order. Judges Downey and Hersey concurred, while Judge Stone dissented without providing an opinion.

Legal Issues Addressed

Judicial Concurrence and Dissent

Application: Judges Downey and Hersey concurred with the decision to grant the writ, while Judge Stone dissented without providing an opinion.

Reasoning: Judges Downey and Hersey concurred, while Judge Stone dissented without providing an opinion.

Retaining Lien for Unpaid Legal Services

Application: Petitioners claimed a retaining lien over documents due to unpaid legal services rendered to the respondent, which was challenged by the trial court's order to produce the documents.

Reasoning: Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order requiring them to produce documents for which they claimed a retaining lien due to unpaid legal services rendered to the respondent.

Writ of Certiorari Requirements

Application: The court granted the writ of certiorari, finding that the trial court's order deviated from essential legal requirements and could cause significant harm to the petitioners without a sufficient remedy on appeal.

Reasoning: Upon review of the petition, responses, and replies, the court determined that the order deviates from essential legal requirements and could cause significant harm to the petitioners without a sufficient remedy on appeal, fulfilling the criteria for granting the writ.