Justice Administrative Commission v. Stanford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Justice Administrative Commission v. Stanford

16 So. 3d 1003, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13111, 2009 WL 2777176

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 28, 2009

Docket1D09-2360

StatusPublished

This text of 16 So. 3d 1003 (Justice Administrative Commission v. Stanford) 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

Justice Administrative Commission v. Stanford, 16 So. 3d 1003, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13111, 2009 WL 2777176 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, J.

The Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) petitions this court for a writ of certiorari, challenging a circuit court order compelling the JAC to process bills for payment of attorneys’ fees on behalf of counsel who were appointed to represent the grandparents of a juvenile in a dependency proceeding. As indicated in Justice Administrative Commission v. Peterson, 989 So.2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and reiterated in Justice Administrative Commission v. Grover, 12 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), the grandparents do not have a constitutional or statutory right to such *1004 counsel and there is no authority to compel the JAC to effect payment of these fees. The circuit court thus departed from the essential requirements of law as to this matter. The petition for a writ of certiora-ri is therefore granted, and the challenged order is quashed.

KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, J.

The Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) petitions this court for a writ of certiorari, challenging a circuit court order compelling the JAC to process bills for payment of attorneys’ fees on behalf of counsel who were appointed to represent the grandparents of a juvenile in a dependency proceeding. As indicated in Justice Administrative Commission v. Peterson, 989 So.2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and reiterated in Justice Administrative Commission v. Grover, 12 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), the grandparents do not have a constitutional or statutory right to such *1004 counsel and there is no authority to compel the JAC to effect payment of these fees. The circuit court thus departed from the essential requirements of law as to this matter. The petition for a writ of certiora-ri is therefore granted, and the challenged order is quashed.

KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 So. 3d 1003, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13111, 2009 WL 2777176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justice-administrative-commission-v-stanford-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack