TERAINCE R. KIRKSEY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A petition for writ of mandamus is denied when the petitioner has not exhausted available remedies or the claim is not yet suitable for judicial review.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus may be dismissed as premature when the circumstances making relief appropriate have not yet ripened or when available alternative remedies…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTeraince Kirksey filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the State of Florida in the First District Court of Appeal, seeking to compel some unna…
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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D17-4788 _____________________________
TERAINCE R. KIRKSEY,
Petitioner,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus – Original Jurisdiction.
January 2, 2018 PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as premature. MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
2
Teraince R. Kirksey, pro se, Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Charneski, 286 F.2d 238 (7th Cir. 1960)…d issue No. 1 above set out. It is conceded that plaintiff could not maintain such an independent action in a Wisconsin state court. This is so because of the holding of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Simpson, 1941, 238 Wis. 550, 555, 300 N.W. 367, 369, wherein it is said: [*240] “Thus, plaintiff under the rule in Wisconsin is directly liable to the injured party if its policy applies. When sued by the injured party it has not only the defense that the insured was not negli…
-
Tillman v. Great Am. Indem. Co. of N.Y., 207 F.2d 588 (7th Cir. 1953)…r there was coverage under the policy and whether there was any duty by the insurance company to defend. Under Wisconsin law the insurance company could not bring a declaratory judgment action for such purpose. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Simpson, 238 Wis. 550, 300 N.W. 367. This is because of Wisconsin’s statutes which permit an injured party to sue the insurer direct, and so that all of the issues may be determined in a single action. The trial court did not indicate the basis for holding the insurance…