Burris v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burris v. State

255 So. 3d 996

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 2018

DocketNo. 1D17-4536

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 So. 3d 996 (Burris v. State) 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

Burris v. State, 255 So. 3d 996 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We grant the motion for clarification. Our prior opinion is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place:

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. As to the application of chapter 499, Florida Statutes (2015), Petitioners have not shown that the trial court is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction. See Scott v. Francati , 214 So.3d 742, 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (noting that "[p]rohibition is an extraordinary writ by which a superior court may prevent an inferior court ... from acting outside its jurisdiction" (quoting Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc. , 605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla. 1992) ) ). Going forward in the trial court, it will be the State's burden to prove its charges that the substances allegedly misbranded by the Petitioners were drugs for purposes of chapter 499. See § 499.003(18), Fla. Stat. (2015) (defining a "drug" as that term is used in Part I of the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act).

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Winsor, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We grant the motion for clarification. Our prior opinion is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place:

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. As to the application of chapter 499, Florida Statutes (2015), Petitioners have not shown that the trial court is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction. See Scott v. Francati , 214 So.3d 742, 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (noting that "[p]rohibition is an extraordinary writ by which a superior court may prevent an inferior court ... from acting outside its jurisdiction" (quoting Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc. , 605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla. 1992) ) ). Going forward in the trial court, it will be the State's burden to prove its charges that the substances allegedly misbranded by the Petitioners were drugs for purposes of chapter 499. See § 499.003(18), Fla. Stat. (2015) (defining a "drug" as that term is used in Part I of the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act).

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Winsor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 So. 3d 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burris-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack