Slaughter v. Marees

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Slaughter v. Marees

319 So. 2d 580, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15327

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 1975

DocketNo. X-403

StatusPublished

This text of 319 So. 2d 580 (Slaughter v. Marees) 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

Slaughter v. Marees, 319 So. 2d 580, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15327 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered pursuant to Chapter 86, F.S.1973, determining that the appellee county court judges have inherent authority to require or permit the installment payment of fines assessed in criminal cases and to require the clerk to accept payments made in that fashion. Since entry of the final judgment, § 775.083(2), F.S.1973 (1974 Supp.), became effective to permit payment of a fine in installments when the convicted defendant cannot otherwise pay. The appeal is therefore moot. See Pearson v. Conley, 158 So.2d 797 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1963) and Northeast Polk County Hospital Dist. v. Snively, 162 So.2d 657 (Fla.1964).

Because of the necessity to dismiss this appeal, we do not reach the substantial question of whether, in the absence of a direct order by one of the appellee county court judges to the appellant clerk to receive fines paid in installments, there was a justiciable controversy which might appropriately have been resolved by a declaratory judgment pursuant to Chapter 86, F. S. Neither do we regard it appropriate to retain jurisdiction of this appeal to consider and decide the more general question of whether judges have inherent power to order clerks to perform ministerial tasks which are neither prohibited nor compelled, by law, and to enforce compliance by con[581]*581tempt proceedings. The judgment below is not precedent for such a decision, and we will not anticipate such a controversy. The appeal is

Dismissed.

McCORD, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered pursuant to Chapter 86, F.S.1973, determining that the appellee county court judges have inherent authority to require or permit the installment payment of fines assessed in criminal cases and to require the clerk to accept payments made in that fashion. Since entry of the final judgment, § 775.083(2), F.S.1973 (1974 Supp.), became effective to permit payment of a fine in installments when the convicted defendant cannot otherwise pay. The appeal is therefore moot. See Pearson v. Conley, 158 So.2d 797 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1963) and Northeast Polk County Hospital Dist. v. Snively, 162 So.2d 657 (Fla.1964).

Because of the necessity to dismiss this appeal, we do not reach the substantial question of whether, in the absence of a direct order by one of the appellee county court judges to the appellant clerk to receive fines paid in installments, there was a justiciable controversy which might appropriately have been resolved by a declaratory judgment pursuant to Chapter 86, F. S. Neither do we regard it appropriate to retain jurisdiction of this appeal to consider and decide the more general question of whether judges have inherent power to order clerks to perform ministerial tasks which are neither prohibited nor compelled, by law, and to enforce compliance by con[581]*581tempt proceedings. The judgment below is not precedent for such a decision, and we will not anticipate such a controversy. The appeal is

Dismissed.

McCORD, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 So. 2d 580, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slaughter-v-marees-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack