Calhoun v. Christie

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calhoun v. Christie

510 So. 2d 1000, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1725, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 1987

DocketNo. 87-414

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 510 So. 2d 1000 (Calhoun v. Christie) 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

Calhoun v. Christie, 510 So. 2d 1000, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1725, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In view of our decision in the companion case of Rainier v. Calhoun, 510 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) we grant Mike Calhoun’s petition for a writ of mandamus and direct the respondent trial judge to rule on Calhoun’s application to enforce claim filed below. The trial judge declined to rule on Calhoun’s application while the appeal in Rainier v. Calhoun was pending. We have today affirmed the orders appealed from in Rainier, so that no legal impediment now exists for declining to rule on Calhoun’s application below. See Goggin v. Shanley, 81 So.2d 728, 729 (Fla.1955) (en banc); Villas at Cutler Ridge Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Newman, 498 So.2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Flagship Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

We assume that the issuance of a formal writ of mandamus will not be necessary [1001]*1001and that the respondent trial judge will rule on Calhoun’s petition to enforce claim upon receipt of this opinion.

Petition granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

In view of our decision in the companion case of Rainier v. Calhoun, 510 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) we grant Mike Calhoun’s petition for a writ of mandamus and direct the respondent trial judge to rule on Calhoun’s application to enforce claim filed below. The trial judge declined to rule on Calhoun’s application while the appeal in Rainier v. Calhoun was pending. We have today affirmed the orders appealed from in Rainier, so that no legal impediment now exists for declining to rule on Calhoun’s application below. See Goggin v. Shanley, 81 So.2d 728, 729 (Fla.1955) (en banc); Villas at Cutler Ridge Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Newman, 498 So.2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Flagship Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

We assume that the issuance of a formal writ of mandamus will not be necessary [1001]*1001and that the respondent trial judge will rule on Calhoun’s petition to enforce claim upon receipt of this opinion.

Petition granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 So. 2d 1000, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1725, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calhoun-v-christie-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack