THOMAS MCNEIL
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 writ of prohibition cannot be used to revoke an order already entered and will not lie where proceedings below have already been completed.
[1] A writ of prohibition is preventive in nature and cannot be used to revoke or undo an order already entered; it will not lie where proceedings have already been completed…
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“prohibition "is preventive and not corrective," the purpose of which "is to prevent the doing of something, not to compel the undoing of something already done"”
English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296–97 (Fla. 1977)
Thomas McNeil, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of prohibition against the State of Florida.…
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
September 22, 2021 PER CURIAM.
DISMISSED. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296–97 (Fla. 1977) (explaining that prohibition “is preventive and not corrective,” the purpose of which “is to prevent the doing of something, not to compel the undoing of something already done”); Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1986) (explaining that prohibition “cannot be utilized to revoke an order already entered” and that it “will not lie where the proceedings below have already been completed”).
RAY, JAY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Thomas McNeil, pro se, Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duffell v. S. Walton Emergency Servs., Inc., 501 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…may be applied, the specific ruling which the appellant assails must have in some way been induced by appellant’s affirmative action or inactivity. See 5 Am. Jur.2d § 713 (1962). For example, in Cowley v. Northern Pacific Railroad Co., 68 Wash. 558,123 P. 998 (1912), in response to the plaintiff’s contention that the judgment of damages was entered at the invitation of the defendant, because defense counsel at the conclusion of the trial had said that he would consent to the trial court’s reaching a just…
-
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. ST. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., 4 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1925)…1. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Washington are also consistently firm in upholding the principle that the contract was subject to be impaired by the exercise of the police power of the state. Cowley v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 68 Wash. 558, 123 P. 998, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 559; Raymond Lumber Co. v. Raymond Light & Water Co., 92 Wash. 330, 159 P. 133, L. R. A. 1917C, 574; N. C. Power Co. v. Public Service Commission, 114 Wash. 102, 194 P. 587; Monroe Water Co. v. Monroe, 130 Wash. 351, 227 P. 516.…
Authorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- Sparkman v. McCLURE, 498 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1986)