Winicki v. Mallard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winicki v. Mallard

417 So. 2d 742, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 16, 1982

DocketNo. AK-427

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 417 So. 2d 742 (Winicki v. Mallard) 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

Winicki v. Mallard, 417 So. 2d 742, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20530 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert John Winicki petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the trial court’s order granting Respondent Mallard’s Motion to Stay “pending final disposition of both Osterndorf v. Turner, et al., [411 So.2d 330] Case No. 81-864, Fifth District Court of Appeal,¹ and Maguire v. Schultz, et al., Case No. 81-2447, Second District Court of Appeal.” By his complaint below Winicki seeks to have Section 196.031(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (1981), [providing for a $25,000 increased homestead real property tax exemption for those persons who have resided in Florida for at least five years] declared unconstitutional as violative of his fundamental right to travel as protected by the privileges and immunities clause and the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

We agree with Winicki’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the stay. We recognize the similarity of issues in both Osterndorf and Ma-guire. However, Winicki is a party to neither of these appeals. Neale v. Aycock, 340 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Second, considering the nature of the constitutional issues involved in these various appeals, there is a substantial likelihood that a definitive ruling by the Florida Supreme Court or, conceivably, the United States Supreme Court may not be forthcoming for some time. Id. Thus, Winicki’s due process right to have his grievances heard by a court of competent jurisdiction will be indefinitely delayed, and, as the old adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied.

Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, we grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order granting stay, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McCORD, MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert John Winicki petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the trial court’s order granting Respondent Mallard’s Motion to Stay “pending final disposition of both Osterndorf v. Turner, et al., [411 So.2d 330] Case No. 81-864, Fifth District Court of Appeal,¹ and Maguire v. Schultz, et al., Case No. 81-2447, Second District Court of Appeal.” By his complaint below Winicki seeks to have Section 196.031(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (1981), [providing for a $25,000 increased homestead real property tax exemption for those persons who have resided in Florida for at least five years] declared unconstitutional as violative of his fundamental right to travel as protected by the privileges and immunities clause and the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

We agree with Winicki’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the stay. We recognize the similarity of issues in both Osterndorf and Ma-guire. However, Winicki is a party to neither of these appeals. Neale v. Aycock, 340 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Second, considering the nature of the constitutional issues involved in these various appeals, there is a substantial likelihood that a definitive ruling by the Florida Supreme Court or, conceivably, the United States Supreme Court may not be forthcoming for some time. Id. Thus, Winicki’s due process right to have his grievances heard by a court of competent jurisdiction will be indefinitely delayed, and, as the old adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied.

Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, we grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order granting stay, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McCORD, MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 So. 2d 742, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winicki-v-mallard-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack