Richardson v. State
111 So. 3d 303, 2013 WL 1715453, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6493
This text of 111 So. 3d 303 (Richardson v. State) 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
Richardson v. State, 111 So. 3d 303, 2013 WL 1715453, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6493 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).
Opinion
Because petitioner has failed to show that he has brought the pending motion to the attention to the trial court or made an express and distinct demand for performance, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Thomas v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 74 So.3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So.2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Al-Hakim v. State
783 So. 2d 293 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Thomas v. State, Department of Revenue
74 So. 3d 145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
111 So. 3d 303, 2013 WL 1715453, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.