Hurst v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
Appellant’s motion to dismiss has been treated as a motion to strike appellee’s answer brief for failure to timely serve it. The action of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission is affirmed. See Britt v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 417 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
McCORD, MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lopez v. FLA. PAROLE & PROB. COMM.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
- Britt v. FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COM'NDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
3Cited by3 opinions
- May v. Fla. Parole & Probation Com'nDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
- Lobo v. Florida Parole & Probation CommissionDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
- Woulard v. Florida Parole & Probation CommissionDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983