Case Name: Irvin PHILPOT, Petitioner, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a foreign corporation, Charles Cindric, individually, Burkhardt Distributing of Gainesville, Inc., a Florida corporation, Bernie Little Distributing, Inc., a Florida corporation, Maris Distributing Company, a Florida corporation, Rudolph Maris, Bartram Maris, and Burtram Maris, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-02-09
Citations: 751 So. 2d 174
Docket Number: No. 1D99-2031
Parties: Irvin PHILPOT, Petitioner, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a foreign corporation, Charles Cindric, individually, Burkhardt Distributing of Gainesville, Inc., a Florida corporation, Bernie Little Distributing, Inc., a Florida corporation, Maris Distributing Company, a Florida corporation, Rudolph Maris, Bartram Maris, and Burtram Maris, Respondents.
Judges: ALLEN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 751
Pages: 174–175

Head Matter:
Irvin PHILPOT, Petitioner, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a foreign corporation, Charles Cindric, individually, Burkhardt Distributing of Gainesville, Inc., a Florida corporation, Bernie Little Distributing, Inc., a Florida corporation, Maris Distributing Company, a Florida corporation, Rudolph Maris, Bartram Maris, and Burtram Maris, Respondents.
No. 1D99-2031.
District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.
Feb. 9, 2000.
Victor L. Chapman of Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner.
Cynthia Tunnicliff of Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A., Tallahassee; Peter E. Moll, Brian D. Wal-lach and Robert A. Geckle, Jr. of Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C.; Stan Cush- man and Jeffrey Dollinger of Scruggs & Carmichael, P.A., Gainesville, for Respondents Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et al.
Stephen A. Rappenecker, Gainesville for Respondent Bernie Little Distributing, Inc.
William A. O’Leary of Rogers Towers Bailey Jones & Gay, P.A., Jacksonville for Respondent Burkhardt Distributing of Gainesville, Inc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner having failed to demonstrate that the trial court's action constituted a material departure from the essential requirements of law, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.