LE ROY WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
LE ROY WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
469 So. 2d 952
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1985)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s initial petition for writ of habeas corpus. Cavalcante v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 414 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a petition seeking relief based upon the grounds raised in his amended petition, which was never properly before the trial court and improperly argued for the first time on appeal.
ERVIN, C.J., and SHIVERS and JOA-NOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ralston Purina & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Tancak, 508 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…fits. In accordance with the parties’ agreement to reserve jurisdiction the order thus did not. dispose of all matured issues in controversy and is therefore interlocutory and not immediately reviewable by appeal. See Metropolitan Life v. Antonucci, 469 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to seek review by subsequent appeal from a final order. MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
-
Smith v. Sarasota Professional Sports, 508 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…er is interlocutory and is not reviewable by appeal. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. Such dismissal shall not preclude review of this order upon subsequent appeal from a final order. Metropolitan Life and Travelers Insurance Company v. Antonucci, 469 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Industrial Steel v. Robinson, 444 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Consolidated Natures Prime v. Lorenzoni, 458 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Wash House v. Tuc…
-
Bass v. IMC Fertilizer & United States Fire Ins., 655 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…are beyond the agreed scope of a hearing”). Moreover, if the JCC had not ruled on the AWW issue, the order would have been interlocutory because it did not decide all issues ripe for review. See Metropolitan Life & Travelers, Inc. Co. v. Antonucci, 469 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (although parties’ attorneys agreed to bifurcate issues and not to address medical or AWW issues, this court held that order disposed of less than all of the issues ripe for review and was therefore interlocutory). AFFIRMED IN P…
Authorities Cited
- Cavalcante v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 414 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)