STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
H. P. GORDON, JAMES L. BUSBEE, ROLLIE ARNOLD AND SENTELL MONK, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida District Court of Appeal denied a petition for a writ of prohibition, dismissing the case due to procedural defects rather than addressing the merits. The court cited the failure to name the circuit judge as a party and non-compliance with statutory and rule requirements.
No, the application for a rule nisi was denied and the suggestion for a writ of prohibition was dismissed because the circuit judge was not made a party and the petitioner failed to comply with statutory and appellate rule provisions.
“the application for rule nisi be and the same is hereby denied, and the suggestion for writ of prohibition is hereby dismissed”
This quote states the court's ultimate decision on the petitioner's request.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida filed a suggestion for a writ of prohibition and applied for a rule nisi. The respondents were H. P. Gordon, James L. Busbee, Rol…
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 Rule Nisi cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner having filed in this Court a suggestion for the issuance of a writ of prohibition and applied for a rule nisi thereon, and the Court having considered the suggestion and argument of counsel, it is
Ordered and adjudged that the application for rule nisi be and the same is hereby denied, and the suggestion for writ of prohibition is hereby dismissed, for the reasons that the Circuit Judge sought to be prohibited is not made a party to these proceedings, and the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 80.06, Florida Statutes 1957, F.S.A., and Rule 4.5, subd. d, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. The dismissal of the suggestion is not to be considered as a determination by the Court of the merits of this cause, and the Court suggests that if further proceedings are contemplated, consideration be given to the opinions of the Supreme Court of Florida in the cases of Groover v. Walker, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 312, and Robinson v. Great Southern Trucking Company, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 418.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orange Cnty. v. Lelan Dale Davis, 414 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…al court’s denial to certify certain items for payment, his remedy is a petition for mandamus. Unfortunately, even if his cross-appeal were considered as such, see Fla.R. App.P. 9.040(c), it would fail to include a proper party, see State v. Gordon, 107 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).…
Authorities Cited
- Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956)
- Robinson v. Great S. Trucking Co., Inc., 95 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1957)