Elias v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Elias v. State

276 So. 2d 3, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4542

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 7, 1973·No. No. 42243·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents.

Elias v. State, 276 So. 2d 3, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4542 (Fla. 1973).

Pincite

276 So. 2d 3 (Elias v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.