State v. NORDELUS

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. NORDELUS

4 So. 3d 1217, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 468, 2009 WL 537502

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 5, 2009

DocketSC04-2408

StatusPublished

This text of 4 So. 3d 1217 (State v. NORDELUS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. NORDELUS, 4 So. 3d 1217, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 468, 2009 WL 537502 (Fla. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Nordelus v. State, 889 So.2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. Bolware, 999 So.2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), approved, 995 So.2d 268 (Fla.2008). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Bolware. We have since decided Bolware, in which we approved the First District’s underlying Bol-ware decision and disapproved the Fourth District’s Nordelus decision. See Bolware v. State, 995 So.2d 268 (Fla.2008). We thus issued an order directing respondent in the present case to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, quash the Fourth District’s Nordelus decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Bolware. Respondent did not respond to that order, thereby constructively conceding that we should so proceed.

We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Bolware.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Nordelus v. State, 889 So.2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. Bolware, 999 So.2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), approved, 995 So.2d 268 (Fla.2008). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Bolware. We have since decided Bolware, in which we approved the First District’s underlying Bol-ware decision and disapproved the Fourth District’s Nordelus decision. See Bolware v. State, 995 So.2d 268 (Fla.2008). We thus issued an order directing respondent in the present case to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, quash the Fourth District’s Nordelus decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Bolware. Respondent did not respond to that order, thereby constructively conceding that we should so proceed.

We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Bolware.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 So. 3d 1217, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 468, 2009 WL 537502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nordelus-fla-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack