NATHANIEL MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD TOLES, DIRECTOR, PALM BEACH COUNTY JAIL, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certification Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has filed a motion seeking this court’s permission to adopt the briefs filed in another case involving the same legal issue raised herein and further requesting that we immediately certify the issue involved to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance. Because the appellee concedes most of the allegations contained in the appellant’s motion and the record supports a conclusion that this case is controlled by our recent decision in State v. Sylvester, 401 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), we have elected to treat the motion as one to expedite the appeal and we do so herein by affirming the order of the trial court denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
We expressly acknowledged in Sylvester that our decision therein directly conflicted with a decision of the First District in Carson v. Bishop, 378 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We also acknowledge that our decision herein expressly conflicts with the Carson decision. We deny the appellant’s request to certify the issue herein as one of ereat Public importance.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
ANSTEAD, BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Toles, 442 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1983)…EHRLICH, Justice. Petitioner is before this Court appealing denial by the circuit court of a petition for writ of habeas corpus and the subsequent action of the district court of appeal affirming that denial. Miller v. Toles, 407 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The district court cited its own earlier decision, State v. Sylvester, 401 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and acknowledged the conflict created with Carson v. Bishop, 378 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d…
-
Fulton v. Division OF Elections, 689 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…the evidence in this case, we conclude that the order fixing responsibility for violation of election laws on both Ms. Fulton and BROOM was error.1 The Commission concedes that under the standard set forth in Sanders v. Florida Elections Commission, 407 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Ms. Fulton was negligent merely in failing to insure that the appropriate disclaimers were placed on the BROOM literature at issue here. Thus, the Commission, by its own admission, could not have found Ms. Fulton in willful viol…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sylvester, 401 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Carson v. Bishop, 378 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)