DAVID GEORGE KENNEDY, APPELLANT,
v.
GUARANTEE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., KENDALL ACRES WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., AND VICKI FEELEY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right Of Access To The Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff petitions this court for a Writ of Mandamus as a result of the dismissal of his case by the Circuit Court sitting in its appellate capacity. The lower court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal because he submitted his Briefs in a handwritten form rather than having it typed. We grant the Writ.
The dismissal deprived the petitioner of his right of access to the courts. Art. I, § 21, Fla. Const.; see G.B.B. Investments, Inc. v. Hinterkopf, 343 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“Any restrictions on such access to the courts must be liberally construed in favor of the constitutional right.”). The appellate division of the circuit court has jurisdiction of and is obligated to hear the petitioner’s appeal from the Dade County Equal Opportunity Board. Art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const. Accordingly, the Circuit Court was in error in dismissing the petitioner’s case. This case is remanded to the appellate division of the Circuit Court so that it may be heard on the merits. See Flagship National Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…II, section 3.4 The other is the constitution’s guarantee of free access to the courts, contained in the Declaration of Rights, article I, section 21.5 This guarantee includes the appellate courts. See Kennedy v. Guarantee Management Services, Inc., 667 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). And it requires that any attempt to limit the right of access to courts must be liberally construed in favor of the right. See Kennedy, 667 So. 2d at 1014; Lehmann v. Cloniger, 294 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Surely, in light…
-
Magier v. Solomon & Benedict, P.A., 704 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…al from county court. We grant the petition because the dismissal.was an unwarranted sanction that deprived the petitioners of their access to courts. See Hastings v. State, 640 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Kennedy v. Guarantee Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 667 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). On December 13, 1996, the county court rendered a default judgment against the petitioners, Mr. Magier and Mr. Kefalides, and in favor of Solomon & Benedict, P.A. The petitioners filed motions for rehearing and to set aside the…
Authorities Cited
- G.B.B. Invs., Inc. v. Hinterkopf, 343 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Flagship Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. The Honorable Thomas A. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)