Legal Opinion
Clark v. Nichols M. N. P.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided September 5, 2017No. CASE NO. 1D17-1682PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the trial court has failed to timely consider and rule upon any motion after having that 'matter called up for hearing and disposition. Petitioner has therefore failed to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. See Moore v. Corr. Med. Servs., 817 So.2d 963, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Absent a showing that the trial court has failed to take action on some pending matter he has noticed for hearing, [the petitioner] has failed to establish an entitlement to mandamus relief.”); Smartt v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 771 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We DENY…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smartt v. First Union National BankDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
- Moore v. Correctional Medical ServicesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
3Cited by9 opinions
- Anthony Washington, Thelmon Henry Washington, Jr., Thelma S. Washington v. Alfred WashingtonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2024
- Brooks v. WillisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019
- Brooks v. WillisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019
- C. C. v. Dep't of Children & FamiliesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2018
- C. C. v. Department of Children and Families, The Guardian ad Litem, and Jewish Family ServicesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.