MARTIN HOGAN, PETITIONER,
v.
FRED O. DICKENSON, ET AL, 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.
The court held that a writ of mandamus to compel a ruling on a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief should be denied if the petitioner has not sufficiently brought the case to the attention of the assigned judge by securing a hearing date.
Martin Hogan petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Hogan challe…
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 Pleading Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
[*867] PETERSON, J.
Martin Hogan petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his action for declaratory and in-junctive relief. Hogan complains that the Department of Motor Vehicles, (“DMV”), is improperly requiring him to install an ignition lock on his car as a condition precedent to restoration of driving privileges that he lost following revocation of his license for driving under the influence.
In response to this court’s request for a response to Hogan’s petition, the DMV agreed that the trial court should rule on the sufficiency of Hogan’s pleadings. We would grant Hogan’s petition except for his failure to allege that he has sufficiently brought the case to the attention of the currently assigned judge by securing a hearing date before the court.1 See, e.g., Perez v. Circuit Court for Osceola County, 882 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Hopefully, our dismissal of Hogan’s petition without prejudice will encourage him to seek a hearing date from the currently assigned judge’s judicial assistant, who will undoubtedly grant his request for a definite time to present his arguments to the court.
PETITION DISMISSED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. . We note that some confusion existed at the trial court level in determining how to treat Hogan’s convoluted pleadings, and that the action has been assigned and reassigned to several judges.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barber, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Marzuq Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Perez v. Cir. Court FOR Osceola Cnty., 882 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)