Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 28, 2016No. 2D16-1328, 2D16-1399, 2D16-1402, 2D16-1403, 2D16-1408, 2D16-1410, 2D16-1434, 2D16-1560, 2D16-1561, 2D16-1562, 2D16-1563, 2D16-1564, 2D16-1565, 2D16-1566, 2D16-1567Published

1DissentLucas, Judge

I fully agree with the majority’s characterization of the petitions before us as reviewable only by mandamus. I also share Judge Wallace’s well-informed concerns about the use of videoconferencing technology within Baker Act court proceedings.

Nevertheless, I cannot join the court’s holding today because of two concerns I hold. The crux of the issue before us revolves around how one defines a ministerial, judicial duty for purposes of mandamus relief. My colleagues have applied a narrow definition of that duty in these cases (essentially holding that because no statute, court opinion, or…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. In Re BeverlySupreme Court of Florida · 1977
  2. State v. GarciaSupreme Court of Florida · 1969
  3. Bryant v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1995
  4. Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1989
  5. Radford v. BrockDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API