SAPP

v.

HASKINS, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By (42 total)

• Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1990)
  …is right and the corresponding duty of DOC are clear and certain to this Court under the precedents discussed above. Mandamus will lie when such a right and duty exist. Moore v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm’n, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 935, 94 S.Ct. 2649, 41 L.Ed.2d 239 (1974). Accordingly, we treat the present petition as a request for writ of mandamus, and grant the writ. Finally, we turn to the question of how DOC shall compute basic gain-time for Waldrup and other similarly situa…
• Griffith v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986)
  …Daniels, prisoners received equitable review of presumptive parole release dates by the vehicle of a petition for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to our decision in Moore v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 935, 94 S.Ct. 2649, 41 L.Ed.2d 239 (1974). Subsequent to Moore, the legislature enacted chapter 120 (Administrative Procedure Act). Ch. 74-310, Laws of Fla. Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1981),2 provides for appeals from final ad [*820] ministrative…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Berry v. State, 400 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
  …nty, supra, we conclude that the determination to grant parole is a discretionary, planning level decision which does not subject the state to tort liability. See Moore v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 935, 94 S.Ct. 2649, 41 L.Ed.2d 239 (1974); Wright v. State, 342 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In reaching this decision, we have carefully considered the recent opinion in Payton v. United States, 636 F. 2d 132 (5th Cir. 1981), which permitted a cause…