Crosby v. Bolden

867 So. 2d 373, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 75, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 186, 2004 WL 252040
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 12, 2004·No. No. SC03-137·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Bolden v. Moore, 865 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), a decision of a district court of appeal certifying a question to be of great public importance. Upon reflection and further consideration, we exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which PARIENTE, J., concurs.

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

Crosby v. Bolden, 867 So. 2d 373, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 75, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 186, 2004 WL 252040 (Fla. 2004).

867 So. 2d 373 (Crosby v. Bolden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McNeil v. Canty
12 So. 3d 215 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
Lewis v. Crosby
878 So. 2d 444 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)