JAMES WIDNER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Widner petitioned for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for rehearing of a habeas corpus denial. The court denied the petition because the trial court had already ruled on the motion, making mandamus relief unavailable.
The petition for writ of mandamus was denied because the trial court had already ruled on the motion, rendering any order to compel performance nugatory and without beneficial result.
[1] A writ of mandamus will not be granted when the requested action has already been taken by the lower tribunal.
[2] A writ of mandamus is used to compel the performance of a ministerial duty that has not been performed.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the writ will never be granted in cases when, if issued, it would prove unavailing, or when compliance with it would be nugatory in its effects, or would be without beneficial results and fruitless to the relator”
Establishes the core principle that mandamus cannot issue when it would have no practical effect
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWidner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for rehearing regarding a denial of his petition for writ of habeas c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ministerial Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 11, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0385 Lower Tribunal No. F25-11452
James Widner, Petitioner,
vs.
State of Florida, Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Mandamus.
James Widner, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for respondent.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
James Widner petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order compelling the trial court to rule on his motion for rehearing of the order
denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. But the trial court has ruled on the motion. It rendered an order denying the motion on February 3, 2026.
And so there is no action for us to compel. See State v. McRae, 38 So. 605, 606 (Fla. 1905) (“[T]he writ will never be granted in cases when, if issued, it would prove unavailing, or when compliance with it would be nugatory in its effects, or would be without beneficial results and fruitless to the relator."); State ex rel. Knott v. Haskell, 72 So. 651, 659 (Fla. 1916) (“The writ of mandamus is granted by the courts to enforce the performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law where such duty has not been performed as the law requires."); State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 150 So. 508, 511 (Fla. 1933) (“A writ of mandamus is a common-law writ used to coerce the performance of any and all official duties where the official charged by law with the performance of such duty refused or failed to perform the same . . . ."); Cade v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D2656 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 17, 2025) ("Since the trial court did so, there is no action for us to compel.”). Accordingly, the petition is denied.
Petition denied.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Widner v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. T. v. Buckwalter, 112 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1933)
- Widner v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)