State v. Boley

287 So. 2d 668, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4075
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided December 19, 1973·No. No. 43531·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari directed to the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 273 So.2d 109 (Fla.1973), reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have considered this case without oral argument. Upon such further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A. Therefore, the writ of certiorari must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., concurring specially, in which ROBERTS, J., concurs.

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

State v. Boley, 287 So. 2d 668, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4075 (Fla. 1973).

287 So. 2d 668 (State v. Boley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mobley v. State
460 So. 2d 383 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Fike v. State
455 So. 2d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Young v. State
439 So. 2d 306 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Phillips v. State
438 So. 2d 886 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Patterson v. State
313 So. 2d 712 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)