Thomas v. State, Department of Revenue
This text of 74 So. 3d 145 (Thomas v. State, Department of Revenue) 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.
Opinion
Petitioner files a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the circuit court to rule on petitioner’s request for a paternity test. Petitioner misunderstands the duty of the trial court in matters such as this. In an ordinary civil action, the trial court is under no obligation to rule on a complaint, motion or request on its own initiative. Instead, it is the litigant’s obligation to take such actions as are necessary to prosecute the case to final disposition, and, in the course of that, to file such motions as may be necessary and bring those motions to the trial court’s attention for a ruling. Absent a showing that an express and distinct demand for performance of this sort has been made, mandamus will not lie. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So.2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
*146 Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
74 So. 3d 145, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17223, 2011 WL 5126171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-department-of-revenue-fladistctapp-2011.