ROBERT E. DOOLEY AND ANN M. DOOLEY, PETITIONERS,
v.
CHARLES H. CULVER, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners filed their Petition for Writ of Certiorari. A motion to dismiss the petition was filed which we determined to be moot, as we did an additional motion to dismiss. They were moot because we did not issue an order to show cause under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.100(f) and of course declined to issue the writ. Respondent then filed a “Request for Attorney’s Fees” which failed to comply with Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b) because it did not “state the grounds upon which recovery is sought.” For that reason we must deny the request. We add however that the rules provide the procedure by which one seeks a writ of certiorari and how one defends against the issuance of the writ. It is clear that a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is unnecessary. If we have no jurisdiction then that can be raised by the respondent if we issue the order to show cause. Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.100(f).
Request for attorneys fees DENIED.
DOWNEY, C. J., and DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lehigh Corp. & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…e appropriate sections and subsections of the statute, along with the year of the statute. The failure to comply with this procedure can result in appropriate action being taken as to future motions for attorney’s fees. See, e. g., Dooley v. Culver, 370 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The Deputy’s award of TTD benefits is reversed, insofar as such benefits were awarded from February 23, 1980 to March 17, 1980, and from May 16,1980 to June 27, 1980. This cause is also remanded for proceedings consistent…
-
Salley v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 511 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1987)…attorney’s fees are assessed by the court, the lower tribunal may enforce payment. (Emphasis added.) The failure to comply with the requirements of this rule has been deemed a sufficient basis to deny a motion for attorney’s fees. Dooley v. Culver, 370 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). See Le-high Corp. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Petitioners respond by referring to Behm v. Division of Administration, Department of Transportation, 288 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1974), in which this Court granted a moti…