Lane v. Kaney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lane v. Kaney

557 So. 2d 210, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1049, 1990 WL 15393

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2312

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 557 So. 2d 210 (Lane v. Kaney) 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

Lane v. Kaney, 557 So. 2d 210, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1049, 1990 WL 15393 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks a name change from the circuit court and the judge has failed or refused to act; we know not which because two orders for response have been essentially unanswered. An assistant attorney general alleges that perhaps petitioner is not entitled to action by the circuit court because he is a prisoner domiciled in another county thus may not be entitled to an order of the court. We cannot agree this is sufficient reason for the trial judge to not act upon the pending case. It should be decided one way or another.

We deem it unnecessary to issue the writ at this time in full confidence the trial judge will act upon receipt of this decision. When the case is concluded below the respondent is requested to notify this court.

It is so ordered.

DANIEL, C.J., concurs. GOSHORN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks a name change from the circuit court and the judge has failed or refused to act; we know not which because two orders for response have been essentially unanswered. An assistant attorney general alleges that perhaps petitioner is not entitled to action by the circuit court because he is a prisoner domiciled in another county thus may not be entitled to an order of the court. We cannot agree this is sufficient reason for the trial judge to not act upon the pending case. It should be decided one way or another.

We deem it unnecessary to issue the writ at this time in full confidence the trial judge will act upon receipt of this decision. When the case is concluded below the respondent is requested to notify this court.

It is so ordered.

DANIEL, C.J., concurs. GOSHORN, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 210, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1049, 1990 WL 15393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-kaney-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack