STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DUDLEY GEORGE HANEMANN, RELATOR,
v.
HONORABLE ROBERT H. WINGFIELD, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The First District Court of Appeal denied a suggestion for a writ of prohibition, holding that a prior decision from the Second District Court of Appeal controlled the case and prevented the requested stay of trial.
No, a writ of prohibition should not be issued because a controlling precedent from the Second District Court of Appeal dictates the outcome.
“We think, and so hold, that the decision rendered by the Second District Court of Appeal in State of Florida v. Lowe, 130 So. 2d 288, is controlling in the instant case and the Suggestion for the Writ of Prohibition is hereby denied.”
This quote establishes the court's holding and the primary reason for denying the writ.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Relator filed a suggestion for a writ of prohibition seeking to stop a trial scheduled for July 24, 1967. The State Attorney had not yet filed a r…
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 Controlling Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
The Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition was filed in this court on July 19, 1967, praying for a writ and stay order to stop a trial to be had in Volusia County on July 24, 1967. The State Attorney for Volusia County has not had time to nor has he filed any response to the Suggestion for the writ, and we do not think it necessary, for a study of the filed Suggestion and the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court1 and the Second District Court of Appeal, reveals that the Suggestion for the writ is not well founded in law. We think, and so hold, that the decision rendered by the Second District Court of Appeal in State of Florida v. Lowe, 130 So.2d 288, is controlling in the instant case and the Suggestion for the Writ of Prohibition is hereby denied.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dudley George Hanemann v. State, 221 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…. As shown in this instance, there are grounds for such observations. For when “law” casts logic onto the dump,ground of sophistry, it paves the way to a fatal collapse of our system of justice. I dissent. . State ex rel. Hanemann v. Wingfield, 202 So. 2d 131 (Fla.App. 1st 1967). . State v. Lowe, 130 So. 2d 288 (Fla.App. 2d 1961). . McHugh v. State, 160 Fla. 823, 36 So. 2d 786 (1948). . 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 238. . Mullins v. Commonwealth, 258 Ry. 529, 80 S.W. 2d 606 (1935). . Gunter v. State…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bacom, 159 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1947)
- State v. Lowe, 130 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Hogan v. Burtner, 159 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1947)