LARRY MANNING, FRANKLIN GALE, ROBERT A. DELANA, LEONARD B. COLEMAN, GEORGE B. CHESTNUT, HARRY F. MCCRAY AND WESLEY L. BRITTON, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1993-01-14
Nos. 91-661, 91-663, to 91-665 and 91-667
WIGGINTON and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.
611 So. 2d 617 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1993) Caution
Cited by 16 cases
Topics
Right To Judicial Review Statutory Amendment Administrative Procedure Act

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Judicial Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
ALLEN, Judge.

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellants are prison inmates appealing an agency order entered in a proceeding upon a petition under section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, and section 120.56, Florida Statutes. These appeals were pending on July 1, 1992, when section 120.52(12)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), became effective. As amended by chapter 92-166, section 9, Laws of Florida, this enactment no longer authorizes prisoners to obtain or participate in section 120.54(4) or section 120.56 proceedings, or to seek judicial review under section 120.68, Florida Statutes, with regard to such agency action. These appeals no longer being authorized by law, and no reason having been shown why the amendment to section 120.52(12)(d) should not apply, these appeals are dismissed. See Endress v. Florida Department of Corrections, 612 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Rothermel v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n, 441 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA1983).

WIGGINTON and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Vaughn v. State, 711 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
    …on, there will be no trial of the case.” Morgan v. State, 486 So. 2d 1356, 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accord Howard v. State, 515 So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Wright v. State, 547 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also Ashley v. State, 611 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Morgan). We continue to believe that such an interpretation of the word “dispositive,” as used in Brown, is the correct one. In Brown, the court offered the following explanation for its decision to require that the…
  • M.N. v. State, 16 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
    …. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). A motion is dispositive if the State could not proceed to trial if the defendant prevailed on the appeal of the ruling on the motion. See Blow v. State, 993 So. 2d 540, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Ashley v. State, 611 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In this case, the motion to continue was not dispositive because reversal on appeal would not have [*282] prevented the State from proceeding to trial; instead, reversal would have merely allowed M.N. to attempt to locate a…
  • Churchill v. State, 219 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 2017)
    …ting Fla. R.. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i)). The Fifth District reasoned as follows: Even though the State stipulated below that the trial court’s ruling was dis-positive, this Court is not bound to accept the State’s stipulation. See Ashley v. State, 611 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (finding that the attorneys and the trial court erred in their assumptions that the ruling on the motion in limine was dispositive, because the defendant could be brought to trial regardless of whether the appellate court aff…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw