Bailey v. Bailey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bailey v. Bailey

1 So. 3d 1292, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 2009 WL 565064

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 2009

Docket4D09-679

StatusPublished

This text of 1 So. 3d 1292 (Bailey v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Bailey, 1 So. 3d 1292, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 2009 WL 565064 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Adelaida Catalina Bailey seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to conduct a hearing on her motion to dissolve a temporary injunction without notice. The presiding trial judge was out of town when the application for hearing was made on February 20, 2009, but the case was sent to another judge who determined on February 27, 2009 that it did not warrant emergency handling.

Petitioner has demonstrated that she was entitled to such a hearing within five days of the application for a hearing on the motion. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(d); Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.610. See also Tsiperfal v. Ohio Sav. Sec., Inc., 756 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hicks v. Chamberlin, 710 So.2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We grant the petition but withhold issuance of the writ on the presumption that the trial court will hear petitioner’s motion to dissolve forthwith.

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Adelaida Catalina Bailey seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to conduct a hearing on her motion to dissolve a temporary injunction without notice. The presiding trial judge was out of town when the application for hearing was made on February 20, 2009, but the case was sent to another judge who determined on February 27, 2009 that it did not warrant emergency handling.

Petitioner has demonstrated that she was entitled to such a hearing within five days of the application for a hearing on the motion. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(d); Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.610. See also Tsiperfal v. Ohio Sav. Sec., Inc., 756 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hicks v. Chamberlin, 710 So.2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We grant the petition but withhold issuance of the writ on the presumption that the trial court will hear petitioner’s motion to dissolve forthwith.

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 1292, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 2009 WL 565064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-bailey-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack