LIVINGSTON MASON, PETITIONER,
v.
CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ETC., RESPONDENT
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.
Mason petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court to rule on a pending proceeding involving the Department of Corrections that had been pending since October 1991. The appellate court granted the petition and issued the writ, directing the trial court to rule within thirty days.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel the trial court to rule on the proceeding. The Department's failure to respond to the Circuit Court's order to show cause is not a valid reason for the Circuit Court to refrain from ruling, as the court has measures available to compel compliance.
[1] Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition after a reasonable time has elapsed.
[2] Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a court to exercise its discretion and decide a cause when there is no valid reason to reserve ruling on the matter.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition after a reasonable time.”
Establishes the foundational principle that mandamus is available to remedy unreasonable judicial delay in ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMason filed a petition for writ of mandamus on April 20, 1992, seeking to compel the Circuit Court to rule on a proceeding pending since October 1991 …
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
[*95] COBB, Judge.
On April 20, 1992, Mason filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Circuit Court to rule on a proceeding which has been pending since October, 1991. The proceeding involved the Department of Corrections. For the reasons stated below we grant the petition and issue the writ.
On June 2, 1992, the state filed a response indicating that the Circuit Court recently filed an order directing the Department to show cause within thirty days why the relief requested should not be granted. With the expectation that a decision below would be forthcoming so as to render the instant petition moot, this court directed the state to file a status report. On July 9, 1992, the state reported that the Department failed to respond to the Circuit Court’s order. Thus, the Circuit Court still has not ruled on the matter. Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition after a reasonable time. Matthews v. Circuit Court, 515 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Davis v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, Lee County, 491 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); McBride v. State, 443 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Here, the court has not ruled apparently because of the Department’s failure to respond to the Circuit Court’s order to show cause.
Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a court to exercise its discretion and decide a cause, where there is no valid reason to reserve ruling on the matter. Villas at Cutler Ridge Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Newman, 498 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); see also Flagship Nat. Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (mandamus lies to require court to rule one way or the other, if there is no justification that ruling be withheld). Under the circumstance of this case, the Department’s failure to respond to the order to show cause is not a valid reason for the Circuit Court not to rule on the matter. The Circuit Court has at its disposal a number of measures to compel the Department to comply with its order to respond, so that it may timely dispose of the case. Accordingly, we grant the petition, issue the writ and direct the Circuit Court to rule on the proceeding below within thirty days.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SR Acquisitions-Florida City, LLC v. SAN Remo Homes AT Fla. City, LLC, 78 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…cDowell, 507 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla,1987). Thus, “[mjandamus is the proper remedy to compel a court to exercise its discretion and decide a cause, where there is no valid reason to reserve ruling on the matter.” Mason v. Cir. Ct., Fifth Judicial Cir., 603 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Smith v. Lambdin, 971 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). This Court’s jurisdiction includes issuance of writs of mandamus. Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(3). A writ of mandamus from this C…
-
Maikel Perez v. ONE OF the Judges OF The Eleventh Jud. Cir. Court, 962 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ion for resentencing without disposition. Furthermore, he contends that the circuit court’s unreasonable delay in scheduling the resentencing is a violation of his right to due process. Perez relies on Mason v. Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, 603 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), where the Fifth District granted a petition for writ of mandamus based upon a ruling which was pending for six months. The circumstances in this case, however, do not merit the issuance of a writ of mandamus. As the Fifth…
Authorities Cited
- Flagship Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. The Honorable Thomas A. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Alphonso McBRIDE v. State, 443 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Villas AT Cutler Ridge Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Honorable Robert H. Newman, 498 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Early v. State, 498 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Matthews v. Cir. Court, 515 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Hampton Alonzo Corry v. State, 515 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Davis v. Twentieth Jud. Cir. Court, 491 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)