Joseph Seme v. Office of the State Attorney, Etc.
This text of Joseph Seme v. Office of the State Attorney, Etc. (Joseph Seme v. Office of the State Attorney, Etc.) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 13, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2241 Lower Tribunal No. F99-1602C ________________
Joseph Seme, Appellant,
vs.
Office of the State Attorney, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler, Judge.
Joseph Seme, in proper person.
Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, and Sonali N. Desai, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee the State of Florida.
Before EMAS, LOBREE, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State ex rel. Ostroff v. Pearson, 61 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla.
1952) (“It is well-established fundamental principle of the law of mandamus
that the writ will never be granted in cases when, if issued, it would prove
unavailing, or when compliance with it would be nugatory in its effects, or
would be without beneficial results and fruitless to the relator.”); Skeen v.
D'Alessandro, 681 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“There was no
evidence, presented or proffered, that the document sought by the
mandamus petition existed at the time of the hearing. Therefore, a writ
ordering its production would be unavailing. Accordingly, we affirm.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Joseph Seme v. Office of the State Attorney, Etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-seme-v-office-of-the-state-attorney-etc-fladistctapp-2025.