King v. Roda

District Court of Appeal of Florida

King v. Roda

405 So. 2d 1069, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21707

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1981

DocketNo. 81-860

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 1069 (King v. Roda) 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

King v. Roda, 405 So. 2d 1069, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21707 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

The appeal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dissolve a temporary injunction and temporary custody order has been considered on its merits, Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(aX3)(B), and is affirmed. The appeal of the trial court’s order denying rehearing as to its order invoking subject matter jurisdiction under section 61.1308, Florida Statutes (1979), and the appeal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s suggestion of disqualification of the trial judge under section 38.10, Florida Statutes (1979), have both been treated as if each was a petition for prohibition, Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c), and, as such, are denied.

AFFIRMED in part; DENIED in part.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

The appeal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dissolve a temporary injunction and temporary custody order has been considered on its merits, Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(aX3)(B), and is affirmed. The appeal of the trial court’s order denying rehearing as to its order invoking subject matter jurisdiction under section 61.1308, Florida Statutes (1979), and the appeal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s suggestion of disqualification of the trial judge under section 38.10, Florida Statutes (1979), have both been treated as if each was a petition for prohibition, Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c), and, as such, are denied.

AFFIRMED in part; DENIED in part.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 So. 2d 1069, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-roda-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack