DWIGHT L. BRYANT, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tipsy Coachman Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because the action of the Florida Parole Commission that was the subject of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus occurred prior to the effective date of section 95.11(5)(f), Florida Statutes, the circuit court erred in concluding that the petition was time-barred under the statute. See Singletary v. Van Meter, 708 So. 2d 266 (Fla.1998); Foley v. Morris, 339 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1976). We decline the Parole Commission’s invitation to employ the “tipsy coachman” rule and affirm on grounds that appellant’s claim is nonetheless barred by the doctrine of laches. The circuit court made no factual findings concerning the equitable considerations inherent in resolving a laches claim, and it would be inappropriate for us to do so in the context of this appeal.
Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BROWNING, C.J., BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Bueno v. Ilene Workman, 20 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999). However, an appellate court cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so. See Bryant v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 965 So. 2d 825, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (declining to employ tipsy coachman rule). Here, because the lower court did not make factual findings on the defendant’s fraud argument, it would be inappropriate for us to consider that argument in this appeal. On remand,…
-
Tank Tech, Inc. v. Valley Tank Testing, 244 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Geoghegan v. Geoghegan, 969 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…rounded in section 61.08(2), Flor [*485] ida Statutes (2006). The principle under-girding this statute is that alimony should be a balance of two elements: the needs of the payee and the ability of the payor to sustain that need. See Jaffy v. Jaffy, 965 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Section 61.08(2) begins with the mandate that in order for a court to determine “a proper award of alimony or maintenance, the court shall consider all relevant economic factors.” Among the factors that the legislature specifica…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Foley v. George A. Morris, M.D., 339 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1976)
- Singletary v. VAN Meter, 708 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1998)