Parramore v. Crosby
920 So. 2d 164, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1237, 2006 WL 249550
Opinion
As the Department of Corrections concedes, the circuit court erred in denying petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus [165] prior 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Parramore v. Crosby, 920 So. 2d 164, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1237, 2006 WL 249550 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
920 So. 2d 164 (Parramore v. Crosby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Forbes v. Crosby
866 So. 2d 198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)