Glor v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

120 So. 3d 69, 2013 WL 3866774, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11875
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 26, 2013·No. No. 1D12-5322·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE THIS COURT’S MANDATE AND FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Dodson v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 120 So.3d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (opinion on motion to enforce this court’s mandate). This case is remanded to the circuit court whereupon by either party’s filing of a proper motion requesting same, the circuit court shall remand to the Department for a new hearing that meets the essential requirements of the law. See Broward County v. G.B.V Int’l Ltd., 787 So.2d 838, 843-44 (Fla.2001); See also Clay County v. Kendale Land Dev., Inc., 969 So.2d 1177, 1180-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

PADOVANO, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

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

Glor v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 120 So. 3d 69, 2013 WL 3866774, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11875 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

120 So. 3d 69 (Glor v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. Monsanto Company
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Johnson v. Monsanto Co.
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Futch
142 So. 3d 910 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)