Skip to main content

Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County

Citations

  • 117 So. 3d 400
  • 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 445
  • 2013 WL 3214436
  • 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1314

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • providing that a jurisdictional requirement of certiorari review is that the order to be reviewed must give rise to material injury that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal
  • stating that “only after irreparable harm has been shown can an appellate court then review whether the petitioner has also shown a departure from the essential requirements of law”
  • explaining that irreparable harm is a jurisdictional prerequisite in 2 certiorari proceedings
  • stating “that the continuation of litigation and any ensuing costs, time, and effort in defending such litigation does not constitute irreparable harm”
  • reiterating “that the continuation of litigation and any ensuing costs, time, and effort in defending such litigation does not constitute irreparable harm” for the purpose of certiorari jurisdiction
  • “[W]e reiterate that the continuation 5 of litigation and any ensuing costs, time, and effort in defending such litigation does not constitute irreparable harm”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Only, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.