Court Opinion

ID: 9773467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:46:57.142525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.130531
License: Public Domain

EAGER, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that the order as made is an anomaly and meaningless; to me, its sep^ arate parts are so inconsistent as to be destructive of the whole. The writs should be made absolute in so far as to prohibit separate trials under this, present order. We have heretofore, upon certain occasions, declined to interfere with orders denying consolidation upon the ground that the trial court had a discretion under Rule 3.195. I feel that our order here should permit respondent to exercise a discretion in determining whether the cases are in fact to be consolidated under the rule, or whether the motions to consolidate should be denied. Perhaps that discretion' might be reviewed upon proper application, but in any event the initial determination should be that of trial court. That court must enter an order which has some real effect and meaning. No such order as the one herein' attacked should be made in the future.