Boname v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boname v. Singletary

706 So. 2d 410, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2171, 1998 WL 93988

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2452

StatusPublished

This text of 706 So. 2d 410 (Boname v. Singletary) 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

Boname v. Singletary, 706 So. 2d 410, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2171, 1998 WL 93988 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.'

Appellant challenges the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In its brief, appellee concedes error: “While the petition for mandamus failed to state a prima facie case for relief as exhaustion of remedies had not been demonstrated, Appellant had exhausted administrative remedies and demonstrated this in his reply.... As Appellant correctly points out, since the court had allowed Appellant the opportunity to file a reply and since the reply was timely, failure to have considered the reply before issuance of the order was error.” Accordingly, this case is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

KAHN, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.'

Appellant challenges the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In its brief, appellee concedes error: “While the petition for mandamus failed to state a prima facie case for relief as exhaustion of remedies had not been demonstrated, Appellant had exhausted administrative remedies and demonstrated this in his reply.... As Appellant correctly points out, since the court had allowed Appellant the opportunity to file a reply and since the reply was timely, failure to have considered the reply before issuance of the order was error.” Accordingly, this case is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

KAHN, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 410, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2171, 1998 WL 93988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boname-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1998.