Dealto v. Keating ex rel. Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dealto v. Keating ex rel. Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida

409 So. 2d 527, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19231

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1661

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 409 So. 2d 527 (Dealto v. Keating ex rel. Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida) 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

Dealto v. Keating ex rel. Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, 409 So. 2d 527, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19231 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

SHARP, Judge.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of our denial of his petition for writ of prohibition was timely filed, and because the issue therein sought to be raised may again be argued to this court in an appeal or interlocutory appeal, we hereby clarify our original denial of the petition as follows: We deny the petition for writ of prohibition because of lack of jurisdiction. The possible violation of section 901.25(3), Florida Statutes (1981), does not deprive the lower court of its power to. act in the case, and therefore prohibition is not an appropriate remedy.

ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

SHARP, Judge.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of our denial of his petition for writ of prohibition was timely filed, and because the issue therein sought to be raised may again be argued to this court in an appeal or interlocutory appeal, we hereby clarify our original denial of the petition as follows: We deny the petition for writ of prohibition because of lack of jurisdiction. The possible violation of section 901.25(3), Florida Statutes (1981), does not deprive the lower court of its power to. act in the case, and therefore prohibition is not an appropriate remedy.

ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 So. 2d 527, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dealto-v-keating-ex-rel-ninth-judicial-circuit-of-the-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack