Lassiter v. Martin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lassiter v. Martin

99 So. 3d 1000, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18802, 2012 WL 5350160

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 31, 2012

DocketNo. 1D12-3233

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 So. 3d 1000 (Lassiter v. Martin) 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

Lassiter v. Martin, 99 So. 3d 1000, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18802, 2012 WL 5350160 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael J. Lassiter petitions the court for mandamus relief in the form of an order compelling the circuit court to dispose of his pending complaint for writ of mandamus. In that complaint, Lassiter seeks to compel respondent, an employee of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, to comply with his public records requests. We conclude based on the circuit court’s recent issuance of an order to show cause and the subsequent filings by the parties that the granting of mandamus relief is unwarranted at this point. See Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). We note, however, that petitioner’s complaint is entitled to accelerated consideration and case priority over other pending cases in accordance with section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes (2012). Accordingly, we deny the pe[1001]*1001tition for writ of mandamus, with direction that the petitioner’s case be expedited.

BENTON, C.J., THOMAS and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael J. Lassiter petitions the court for mandamus relief in the form of an order compelling the circuit court to dispose of his pending complaint for writ of mandamus. In that complaint, Lassiter seeks to compel respondent, an employee of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, to comply with his public records requests. We conclude based on the circuit court’s recent issuance of an order to show cause and the subsequent filings by the parties that the granting of mandamus relief is unwarranted at this point. See Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). We note, however, that petitioner’s complaint is entitled to accelerated consideration and case priority over other pending cases in accordance with section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes (2012). Accordingly, we deny the pe[1001]*1001tition for writ of mandamus, with direction that the petitioner’s case be expedited.

BENTON, C.J., THOMAS and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 3d 1000, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18802, 2012 WL 5350160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lassiter-v-martin-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack