Prater v. Crosby

917 So. 2d 1037, 2006 WL 42222
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 10, 2006
Docket1D05-0504
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 917 So. 2d 1037 (Prater 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
Prater v. Crosby, 917 So. 2d 1037, 2006 WL 42222 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

917 So.2d 1037 (2006)

Randall T. PRATER, Appellant,
v.
James V. CROSBY, Appellee.

No. 1D05-0504.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 10, 2006.

Ronald T. Prater, pro se, appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Sean F. Callaghan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee's motion to relinquish jurisdiction is treated as a concession of error. The order denying appellant's "Complaint for Declaratory Relief" is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings in which petitioner is provided an opportunity to reply to the response filed below. The circuit court erred in denying the complaint prior to expiration of the time afforded appellant to reply to the response. See Salow v. State, 766 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(stating that the trial court should read and consider a court-authorized reply before denying a petition).

ERVIN, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Barber v. State
917 So. 2d 1037 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
917 So. 2d 1037, 2006 WL 42222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prater-v-crosby-fladistctapp-2006.