ANDREW R. ALTMAN, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
ANDREW R. ALTMAN, M.D., APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
580 So. 2d 905
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1991)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. We reject appellant’s contention that the appellee’s emergency order is deficient on its face. Our affirmance is, of course, without prejudice to the appellant’s right to challenge the appellee’s pending administrative complaint in an appropriate administrative hearing or any subsequent review thereof.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and STEVENSON, W. MATTHEW, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1995)…. 2d DCA 1995). These orders are not "without precedent. See, e.g., Martin v. Marko, 651 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Lowery v. Kaplan, 650 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Jenkins v. Singletary, 580 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A, 436 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 440 So. 2d 353 (Fla.), and review denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1069, 104 S.Ct. 1422, 79 L.Ed.2d 747, and cert,…
-
Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…orderly process of judicial administration by filing frivolous and successive challenges to a conviction and sentence. See Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1995); Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Jenkins v. Singletary, 580 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The cases cited above indicate that there is no fixed number of filings that constitute an abuse of process. Rather, this determination is made on a case by case [*1375] basis and involves consideration of, among other things,…
-
Jimi L. Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…pportunity to amend this pleadings. Upon consideration of the above, this court finds that Mr. Birge’s pro se activities before this court have substantially interfered with the orderly process of judicial administration. See Jenkins v. Singletary, 580 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Peterson v. State, 530 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accordingly, petitioner shall show cause within twenty days of date of this order and in writing filed with the clerk of this court, why he should not be prohibited from app…