Kerr v. Second Judicial Circuit Court

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kerr v. Second Judicial Circuit Court

255 So. 3d 894

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 2018

DocketNo. 1D18–0297

StatusPublished

This text of 255 So. 3d 894 (Kerr v. Second Judicial Circuit Court) 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

Kerr v. Second Judicial Circuit Court, 255 So. 3d 894 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Patrice Kerr filed a tort suit against several public officials and other defendants, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Claiming the trial court has not timely ruled on his pending motions, Kerr seeks a writ of mandamus. But in a civil case like this one, "it is the litigant's obligation to take such actions as are necessary to prosecute the case to final disposition, and, in the course of that, to file such motions as may be necessary and bring those motions to the trial court's attention for a ruling." Thomas v. State, Dep't of Revenue , 74 So.3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Because Kerr has made no showing that he has taken such actions, his petition is DENIED.

Jay, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Patrice Kerr filed a tort suit against several public officials and other defendants, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Claiming the trial court has not timely ruled on his pending motions, Kerr seeks a writ of mandamus. But in a civil case like this one, "it is the litigant's obligation to take such actions as are necessary to prosecute the case to final disposition, and, in the course of that, to file such motions as may be necessary and bring those motions to the trial court's attention for a ruling." Thomas v. State, Dep't of Revenue , 74 So.3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Because Kerr has made no showing that he has taken such actions, his petition is DENIED.

Jay, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 So. 3d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-v-second-judicial-circuit-court-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack