Maridon v. Krischer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maridon v. Krischer

664 So. 2d 40, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12540, 1995 WL 712523

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 1995

DocketNo. 95-0797

StatusPublished

This text of 664 So. 2d 40 (Maridon v. Krischer) 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

Maridon v. Krischer, 664 So. 2d 40, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12540, 1995 WL 712523 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal we affirm the decision of the trial court in dismissing the appellants’ complaint for declaratory relief based on a pending criminal action, Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534 (Fla.1952), but remand with direction to the trial judge that such action be dismissed without prejudice. This will en[41]*41able the appellants to refile the action if the information has not been dismissed or set aside, but the capias, summons, or other process issued on such information has not been executed without unreasonable delay. As provided for in section 775.15(5), Florida Statutes (1993), in determining what is reasonable delay, inability to locate the appellant after diligent search or the appellants’ absence from the state shall be considered.

To do otherwise would result in the appellants being essentially barred from seeking declaratory relief as to the validity of a statute, to which they would otherwise be entitled, on the basis of a pending action under which they are unable to secure relief due to lack of execution of legal process.

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN, JJ., and CYNTHIA G. ANGELOS, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal we affirm the decision of the trial court in dismissing the appellants’ complaint for declaratory relief based on a pending criminal action, Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534 (Fla.1952), but remand with direction to the trial judge that such action be dismissed without prejudice. This will en[41]*41able the appellants to refile the action if the information has not been dismissed or set aside, but the capias, summons, or other process issued on such information has not been executed without unreasonable delay. As provided for in section 775.15(5), Florida Statutes (1993), in determining what is reasonable delay, inability to locate the appellant after diligent search or the appellants’ absence from the state shall be considered.

To do otherwise would result in the appellants being essentially barred from seeking declaratory relief as to the validity of a statute, to which they would otherwise be entitled, on the basis of a pending action under which they are unable to secure relief due to lack of execution of legal process.

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN, JJ., and CYNTHIA G. ANGELOS, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 So. 2d 40, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12540, 1995 WL 712523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maridon-v-krischer-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack