JAMES W. INGRAM, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
JAMES W. INGRAM, JR., PETITIONER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
369 So. 2d 948
Florida Supreme Court (1979)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ. Upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by article V, section (3)(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanicola v. State, 384 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1980)…tate counters with the argument that when read in its entirety, chapter 409 makes it clear that the type of “changes in circumstances” which must be disclosed are those which affect eligibility for financial assistance. See, e. g., Riggins v. State, 369 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1979); § 409.185, Fla.Stat. (1977). We agree. The statute prohibits non-disclosure of “a change in circumstances in order to obtain or continue to receive . benefits to which he is not entitled.” § 409.325(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1977) (E.S.). Clear…