Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Smith v. McNeil

Smith v. McNeil

44 So. 3d 641, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13318, 2010 WL 3465160
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. McNeil. Read the opinion of the Court — 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16155 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 7, 2010·No. 1D09-6366·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the petition for writ of mandamus without affording petitioner the opportunity to reply to the response. See Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Salow v. State, 766 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Huffman v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 981 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Accordingly, the circuit court’s order denying the petition for writ of mandamus is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

PETITION GRANTED.

THOMAS, BENTON, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

Smith v. McNeil, 44 So. 3d 641, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13318, 2010 WL 3465160 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

44 So. 3d 641 (Smith v. McNeil) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Huffman v. Florida Department of Corrections
981 So. 2d 482 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Salow v. State
766 So. 2d 1222 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Bard v. Wolson
687 So. 2d 254 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)