NOEL CHANDLER ET AL., PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT/APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mootness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause reaches us by way of petitioners’ assertion of appellate jurisdiction and petition for writ of certiorari from a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 366 So. 2d 64. We have no appellate jurisdiction, as the district court expressly declined to rule upon the constitutional issue. Chandler v. State, 366 So. 2d 64, 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
Nor do we have certiorari jurisdiction. No conflict has been demonstrated, and the question of great public interest certified to us by the district court has been rendered moot by the decision in Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc., 370 So. 2d 764 (Fla.1979).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Inciarrano, 473 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985)…s clear that the legislature did not intend that every oral communication be free from interception without the prior consent of all the parties to the communication. For example, in Chandler v. State, 366 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 1157 (Fla.1979), aff'd, 449 U.S. 560, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981), the district court held that defendants who engaged in an open-air conversation while using commercially sold walkie-talkies or handie-talkies did not demonstrate a justifiable e…
-
Maxwell v. State, 443 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1983)…mit or exclude television coverage must attempt to show with specificity that it will deleteriously affect the trial. See Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981), aff'g, 366 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1979). Appellant concedes that his motion contained only general assertions, but argues that this failure was excusable because trial counsel did not know and could not have known prior to trial that the electronic media representatives would…
-
Rubasky v. State, 401 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…attery, both terms to be served consecutively and with credit for time previously served. Appellant expressly reserved the issue of electronic media coverage of his trial in the event that the United States Supreme Court reversed Chandler v. State, 376 So. 2d 1157 (Fla.1979). However, appellee correctly notes that on January 26, 1981, the Supreme Court affirmed the Chandler decision. Chandler v. Florida, - U.S. ——, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981). Therefore, appellant’s first argument is moot. Prior to…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Est. of W. T. Grant Co. (Bankrupt) v. Lewis, 370 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1979)
- Oliphant v. State, 366 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Chandler v. State, 366 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)