stating that before a court may grant certiorari relief, “the petitioner must establish the following three elements: ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the 3 remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal’” (quoting Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132-33 (Fla. 2011))
How later courts described this case
- stating that before a court may grant certiorari relief, “the petitioner must establish the following three elements: ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the 3 remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal’” (quoting Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132-33 (Fla. 2011))
- holding that “the district courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for certiorari based on a public entity’s claim that it is entitled to immunity based on the particular facts of the lawsuit brought against it”
- holding that before certiorari can be used to review non-final orders, the appellate court must focus on the threshold jurisdictional question of whether there is a material injury that cannot be corrected on appeal
- comparing Belair with Martin-Johnson, Inc. to distinguish "the situation where a party was merely forced to continue with litigation and thus did not suffer 'irreparable harm' from those situations where an order violated a party's 'fundamental rights' and caused harm that could not be later remedied"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CANADY, J.,
dissenting.
I would adopt the cogent reasoning of Judge Wetherell’s dissent and hold that Citizens Property Insurance Corporation is entitled to certiorari relief because it is statutorily immune from suit on the bad faith claim asserted by San Perdido Association. I would reframe the certified question as follows: “Is the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the assertion of immunity under section 627.351(6)(s)(l), Florida Statutes (2009), reviewable by cer-tiorari?” And I would answer the re-framed certified question in the affirmative.
*359 I dissent, therefore, from the majority’s decision, which does not afford Citizens the full benefit of its statutory immunity.
POLSTON, C.J., concurs.