Espinoza v. Singletary

686 So. 2d 813, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 307, 1997 WL 35006
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 29, 1997·No. No. 96-3228·Published

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We withdraw our prior opinion, 682 So.2d 1226, due to the recent adoption of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j), which was adopted after the issuance of our opinion. We substitute the following in its place:

Denied. See Johnson v. Wainwright, 463 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985); Meyer v. Singletary, 610 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

WARNER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

Espinoza v. Singletary, 686 So. 2d 813, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 307, 1997 WL 35006 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

686 So. 2d 813 (Espinoza v. Singletary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. Wainwright
463 So. 2d 207 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
WT Holding, Inc. v. State Agency for Health Care Admin.
682 So. 2d 1224 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Meyer v. Singletary
610 So. 2d 1329 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)