Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1985

Cribbs v. Department of Corrections

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 29, 1985 · Barfield, Ervin, Wentworth

470 So. 2d 757; 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14511 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Hendrix v. Florida Department of Corrections (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Harris v. Department of Corrections (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J„ concur. BARFIELD, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

Concurring Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge,

concurs:

The hearing officer erred in holding that inmates of Union Correctional Institution were not substantially affected parties in a challenge to an interoffice memorandum and an institutional operating procedure governing hours during which inmates could watch television. However, the memorandum and operating procedure are not rules subject to challenge under section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1983), Department of Corrections v. Holland, et al., 469 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Adams v. Department of Corrections, 469 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Department of Cor*758rections v. Adams, 458 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Department of Corrections v. Sumner, 447 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). I therefore agree to affirming the dismissal of the petition.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.