Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Parramore v. Crosby

Parramore v. Crosby

920 So. 2d 164, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1237, 2006 WL 249550
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 3, 2006
DocketNo. 1D05-2164
StatusPublished

This text of 920 So. 2d 164 (Parramore v. Crosby) 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
Parramore v. Crosby, 920 So. 2d 164, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1237, 2006 WL 249550 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As the Department of Corrections concedes, the circuit court erred in denying petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus [165]*165prior to expiration of the time afforded for him to reply to the Department’s response. See Forbes v. Crosby, 866 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Accordingly, we grant the Department’s motion for remand. The circuit court’s order is quashed, and this cause is remanded with directions to the circuit court to provide an opportunity to petitioner to reply.

ERVIN, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.

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

Related

Forbes v. Crosby
866 So. 2d 198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
920 So. 2d 164, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1237, 2006 WL 249550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parramore-v-crosby-fladistctapp-2006.