Sirdevan v. Strand

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sirdevan v. Strand

120 So. 3d 1280, 2013 WL 5287907, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14870

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 2013

DocketNo. 1D13-1649

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 So. 3d 1280 (Sirdevan v. Strand) 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

Sirdevan v. Strand, 120 So. 3d 1280, 2013 WL 5287907, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14870 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James P. Sirdevan, the legal father of the child at issue in this proceeding, petitions for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court’s non-final order denying his motion for summary judgment wherein he challenged Respondent Jeffrey B. Strand’s standing to file a paternity petition. We GRANT the petition and QUASH the trial court’s order. See Slowinski v. Sweeney, 64 So.3d 128, 128-29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father and determining that it was fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to a nonexistent cause of action).

LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James P. Sirdevan, the legal father of the child at issue in this proceeding, petitions for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court’s non-final order denying his motion for summary judgment wherein he challenged Respondent Jeffrey B. Strand’s standing to file a paternity petition. We GRANT the petition and QUASH the trial court’s order. See Slowinski v. Sweeney, 64 So.3d 128, 128-29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father and determining that it was fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to a nonexistent cause of action).

LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 3d 1280, 2013 WL 5287907, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sirdevan-v-strand-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack