James v. Crews

District Court of Appeal of Florida

James v. Crews

120 So. 3d 628, 2013 WL 4734051, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14070

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 2013

DocketNo. 1D13-3016

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 So. 3d 628 (James v. Crews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James v. Crews, 120 So. 3d 628, 2013 WL 4734051, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14070 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ray James, a state inmate, filed a civil complaint in the circuit court. Cognizant of our decision in Moore v. Correctional Medical Services, 817 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), he filed a notice of hearing in an attempt to move the matter forward, and after the trial court took no action thereon, has petitioned this court for mandamus relief. There is no indication, however, that James coordinated the scheduling of the hearing with the lower tribunal, as is ordinarily required in the trial courts of this state. We therefore DENY his petition, but do so without prejudice to James filing a motion requesting that the circuit court schedule a hearing and that he be permitted to appear at that hearing telephonieally. See generally Johnson v. Johnson, 783 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

VAN NORTWICK, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ray James, a state inmate, filed a civil complaint in the circuit court. Cognizant of our decision in Moore v. Correctional Medical Services, 817 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), he filed a notice of hearing in an attempt to move the matter forward, and after the trial court took no action thereon, has petitioned this court for mandamus relief. There is no indication, however, that James coordinated the scheduling of the hearing with the lower tribunal, as is ordinarily required in the trial courts of this state. We therefore DENY his petition, but do so without prejudice to James filing a motion requesting that the circuit court schedule a hearing and that he be permitted to appear at that hearing telephonieally. See generally Johnson v. Johnson, 783 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

VAN NORTWICK, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 3d 628, 2013 WL 4734051, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-crews-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack