FLORIDA EX REL. WORTHINGTON

v.

CANNON, JUDGE

Citator

Cited By

• Homestead Hosp., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 829 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
  …00 Surtax Amendment is a special law. We disagree. The 2000 Surtax Amendment, as written, is applicable only to Miami-Dade County, and therefore, is an unconstitutional special law. See State v. Cannon, 181 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla.1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 981, 86 S.Ct. 1881, 16 L.Ed.2d 691 (1966)(holding that following the adoption of the home rule charter, the Florida Legislature is “not now authorized to enact [*263] laws which relate only to Dade County.”); S & J Transp., Inc. v. Gordon, 176 So. 2d 69…
• Emmett J. Stebbins v. Keystone Ins. Co., 481 F.2d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
  …litigant who continuously appears pro se,8 but neither is it fair or just for the court to ignore palpable ignorance in rendering a judgment with such drastic consequences. . See Mazique v. Mazique, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 48, 356 F. 2d 801, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 981, 86 S.Ct. 1882, 16 L.Ed.2d 691 (1966) ; Barnes v. United States, 241 F. 2d 252 (9th Cir. 1956). . See Stebbins v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 469 F. 2d 268, (4th Cir. 1972) ; Stebbins v. Continental Ins. Cos., 143 U.S. [*512] App.D.C. 121, 442 F. 2…
• Dozier v. Ford Motor Co., 702 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
  …Court and Court of Appeals here. At least where a litigant is seeking a monetary award, we do not believe pro se status necessarily justifies special consideration. See, e.g., Mazique v. Mazique, 356 F. 2d 801 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 981, 86 S.Ct. 1882, 16 L.Ed.2d 691 (1966). While such a pro se litigant must of course be given fair and equal treatment, he cannot generally be permitted to shift the burden of litigating his case to the courts, nor to avoid the risks of failure that…