Hurst v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission
418 So. 2d 444, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28894
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 25, 1982·No. No. AK-90·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
Appellant’s motion to dismiss has been treated as a motion to strike appellee’s answer brief for failure to timely serve it. The action of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission is affirmed. See Britt v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 417 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hurst v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 418 So. 2d 444, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28894 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).
418 So. 2d 444 (Hurst v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lobo v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission
433 So. 2d 622 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Woulard v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission
426 So. 2d 66 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
May v. Fla. Parole & Probation Com'n
424 So. 2d 122 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)