ARNOLD ANCRUM, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
By timely petition for writ of certiorari, Arnold Ancrum seeks review of the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus, in which he sought an order directing that he be transferred to a correctional institution closer to his family. In accordance with Oscar v. Florida Department of Corrections, 973 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), we treat this proceeding as an appeal of a final order. On the merits, the circuit court correctly determined that Ancrum does not have a clear legal right to a transfer to any particular correctional institution, and that mandamus will therefore not lie to compel that result.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, WEBSTER, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…dence reflects a justification for such an award and the ability of the paying spouse to make the payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.’ ” Bishop v. Bishop, 47 So. 3d 326, 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Vigo v. Vigo, 15 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)). The record clearly reflects that the wife did not have the financial ability to make the equalizing payment without endangering her economic status. B. Future alimony. On appeal, the wife challenges the trial court’s fail…
-
Bishop v. Bishop, 47 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…plish equitable distribution “is properly awarded only when the evidence reflects a justification for such an award and the ability of the paying spouse to make the payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.” Vigo v. Vigo, 15 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A review of the equitable distribution schedule reflects that the equalizing payment essentially resulted from the overvaluation of the marital home together with the assignment to the Wife…
-
Hooker v. Hooker, 220 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 2017)…the Fourth District explained in Hooker, “An interspousal gift is established by showing ‘(1) donative intent, (2) delivery or possession of the gift, and (3) surrender of dominion and control of the gift.’ ” 174 So. 3d at 511 (quoting Vigo v. Vigo, 15 So. 3d 619, 622 (Pla. 3d DCA 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “a gift is made when a donor, intending to make a gift, delivers the gift to the donee and relinquishes all possession and control of the gift.” Mills v. Mills, 845 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kristopher COX v. State, 973 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)