Griffin v. United States

Supreme Court of Florida

Griffin v. United States

172 So. 2d 458

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1965

DocketNo. 33400

StatusPublished

This text of 172 So. 2d 458 (Griffin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffin v. United States, 172 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review a decision of a District Court of Appeal, which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this Court and another District Court of Appeal. See United States of America v. Griffin et al., 164 So.2d 883.

Our initial examination of the petition and record suggested a possible jurisdictional conflict. We issued the writ and have heard arguments on both jurisdiction and merits.

After a thorough consideration of the petition and record we are now led to conclude that no jurisdictional conflict of decisions is present. Finding, therefore, that the writ was improvidently issued, it is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur. DREW, C. J., heard the argument but did not participate in the decision.

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

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review a decision of a District Court of Appeal, which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this Court and another District Court of Appeal. See United States of America v. Griffin et al., 164 So.2d 883.

Our initial examination of the petition and record suggested a possible jurisdictional conflict. We issued the writ and have heard arguments on both jurisdiction and merits.

After a thorough consideration of the petition and record we are now led to conclude that no jurisdictional conflict of decisions is present. Finding, therefore, that the writ was improvidently issued, it is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur. DREW, C. J., heard the argument but did not participate in the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 So. 2d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-united-states-fla-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack