RICK SWEARINGEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
v.
CHRISTOPHER PRETZER, AN INDIVIDUAL MARK L. WOOD, AN INDIVIDUAL RICHARD A. BARSKY, AN INDIVIDUAL RICHARD CHAMNES, AN INDIVIDUAL, EDWARD HENRY, AN INDIVIDUAL, FLORIDA CARRY, INC., ETC.

Fla. 1st DCA | 2019-06-24
No. 19-2053
273 So. 3d 1196 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2019) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

Petitioners failed to demonstrate entitlement to certiorari or prohibition relief.


Headnotes

[1] A petition for writ of certiorari is properly dismissed when the order sought to be reviewed is subject to direct appellate review and the petition is duplicative of a pe…

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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Rick Swearingen, in his official capacity with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, sought writs of certiorari and prohibition against Christoph…

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.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners having failed to demonstrate entitlement to either certiorari relief or prohibition relief, the petition for writ of certiorari and for writ of prohibition is dismissed.

WOLF, J., concurs; WETHERELL, J., concurs in result with opinion; MAKAR, J., dissents with opinion.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________

WETHERELL, J., concurring in result.

I concur in the dismissal of this case because the order challenged in the petition is properly reviewed by appeal under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) and this case is duplicative of the earlier-filed and still-pending appeal filed by these same petitioners challenging the same order.

MAKAR, J., dissenting.

Because the Department’s emergency petition establishes a basis for relief, I would require that a response be filed in opposition.

_____________________________ Robert J. Sniffen and Jeffrey D. Slanker of Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondents.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw