CHARLES SCOTT, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Charles Scott seeking review of the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ of mandamus, which challenged a disciplinary report resulting in the imposition of disciplinary confinement and loss of gain time. To the extent that Scott contests the circuit court’s imposition of a lien on his prisoner trust account, we treat his argument as if it had been filed as a motion for review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430. Lowery v. McDonough, 940 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). We grant that motion for review and quash the circuit court’s order which authorised imposition of the lien. This court has repeatedly recognized that statutory authority does not exist for the circuit court to impose a lien to recover costs and fees in proceedings of this nature. Id.; see also Terry v. McDonough, 935 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Rodriguez v. McDonough, 932 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Wagner v. McDonough, 927 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
WEBSTER, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charles v. Fla. Foreclosure Placement Ctr., LLC., 988 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…anner by at least identifying what Charles was signing, specifically that one of the documents she signed was a closing statement for the sale of her property and that another was a deed to her property. See Land Title of Cent. Fla., LLC v. Jimenez, 946 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding that a title insurance agency which acts as a closing agent owes a duty to conduct the closing in a reasonably prudent manner); Sommers v. Smith & Berman, P.A., 637 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (same); Askew v.…
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions-Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2013)…(claimant) must prove that when the parties made the contract, (defendant) knew or reasonably should have known of the special circumstances leading to such damages. SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES FOR 504.2b 1. Land Title of Central Fla., LLC v. Jimenez, 946 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Special damages are those that do not necessarily result from the wrong or breach of contract complained of, or which the law does not imply as a result of that injury, even though they might naturally and proximately resul…
-
Bongiorno v. Americorp, Inc., 159 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…” ZP No. 54 Ltd. P’ship v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 917 So. 2d 368, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “[A] foreseeable consequence is one that a prudent person would anticipate as likely to result from an act.” Land Title of Cent. Fla., LLC v. Jimenez, 946 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). “To impose a duty, it is not enough that a risk merely exists or that a particular risk is foreseeable; rather, the defendant’s conduct must create or control the risk before liability may be imposed.” Demelus v. King Motor…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- C.R. v. State, 927 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Wagner v. McDONOUGH, 927 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Terry v. McDONOUGH, 935 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Lowery v. McDONOUGH, 940 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Rodriguez v. McDONOUGH, 932 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)