EDWARD R. LAMPP AND HONORABLE JOHN U. BIRD, AS CIRCUIT JUDGE IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1964-07-08
No. 32959
THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., and SMITH, Circuit Judge, concur., DREW, C. J., dissents with opinion., ROBERTS, J., dissents and agrees with DREW, C. J.
166 So. 2d 891 Florida Supreme Court (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Upon further consideration of this cause following oral argument, we have con-eluded that this Court does not have jurisdiction in the. matter. Thereupon, it is

Ordered that this appeal be, and it is hereby, dismissed, Fla.App., 155 So.2d 10.

THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., and SMITH, Circuit Judge, concur.

DREW, C. J., dissents with opinion.

ROBERTS, J., dissents and agrees with DREW, C. J.

DREW, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

I think we have jurisdiction.

ROBERTS, J., concurs.

Dissent
DREW, Chief Justice

DREW, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

I think we have jurisdiction.

ROBERTS, J., concurs.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Cuciak v. State, 410 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1982)
    …criminal cases. Prior to the adoption of the discovery rule for criminal cases in Florida, the doctrine of discovery was “a complete and utter stranger to criminal proceedings.” State v. Lampp, 155 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), appeal dismissed, 166 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1964). Our decision in Hines v. State does not compel the result reached by the majority. In Hines, we held that a probationer in a revocation proceeding was entitled to the minimal due process requirements delineated by the Supreme Court of t…
  • State v. Lenard B. Dolen, Jr., 390 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
    …e 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Prior to the adoption of the criminal rules in 1967, a defendant in a criminal prosecution had no right to take discovery depositions. State v. Lampff, 155 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), appeal dismissed, 166 So. 2d 891 (1964). It is significant to note that the rule permitting a deposition to perpetuate testimony requires the presence of the defendant unless the [*409] defendant who is not in custody waives his right to appear. In State v. Basiliere, 353 So. 2d 82…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw