Rhoades v. Sweet

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rhoades v. Sweet

276 So. 2d 221, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6905

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1973

DocketNo. 72-1076

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 276 So. 2d 221 (Rhoades v. Sweet) 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

Rhoades v. Sweet, 276 So. 2d 221, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6905 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were petitioners in a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court. The circuit judge denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and this appeal followed. The appellants have failed to show error because mandamus is a discretionary writ which will issue only upon the showing of a clear legal right in the relator to the performance of a ministerial act. See State ex rel. Eichenbaum v. Cochran, Fla.1959, 114 So.2d 797. See also State ex rel. Long v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199 (1935).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were petitioners in a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court. The circuit judge denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and this appeal followed. The appellants have failed to show error because mandamus is a discretionary writ which will issue only upon the showing of a clear legal right in the relator to the performance of a ministerial act. See State ex rel. Eichenbaum v. Cochran, Fla.1959, 114 So.2d 797. See also State ex rel. Long v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199 (1935).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 So. 2d 221, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhoades-v-sweet-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack