Morrison v. Roos
This text of 944 So. 2d 341 (Morrison v. Roos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Christopher MORRISON, Petitioner,
v.
Eleonora Bianca ROOS, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Elizabeth K. Russo and Jonathan L. Gaines of Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Miami, FL, and J. Stephen O'Hara, Jr. of O'Hara Spradley, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Petitioner.
Thomas E. Duffy, Jr. of Terrell, Hogan, Ellis and Yegelwel, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision in Roos v. Morrison, 913 So.2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), based on a question certified by the First District Court of Appeal to be of great public importance. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
*342 Upon further consideration, we have determined that we should exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction of this cause. Accordingly, this review proceeding is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
944 So. 2d 341, 2006 WL 3435556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-roos-fla-2006.