Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2007

Bryant v. Florida Parole Commission

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided September 25, 2007 · Per Curiam

965 So. 2d 825; 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 14871; 2007 WL 2766716 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

TANK TECH, INC. v. VALLEY TANK TESTING, L L C (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
H S B C BANK U S A, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE v. CLARE NELSON, A/ K/ A CLARE BEEMAN (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Nelson (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
Lana v. Assimakopoulos-Panuthos (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
Bueno v. Workman (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
Pearce v. McNeil (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
Kelley v. McNeil (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
Jaffy v. Jaffy (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

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

965 So.2d 825 (2007)

Dwight L. BRYANT, Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 1D06-5112.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 25, 2007.

Dwight L. Bryant, pro se, Appellant.

Kim Fluharty, General Counsel, and Connie Lynn Beach, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Because the action of the Florida Parole Commission that was the subject of appellant's petition for writ of mandamus occurred prior to the effective date of section 95.11(5)(f), Florida Statutes, the circuit court erred in concluding that the petition was time-barred under the statute. See Singletary v. Van Meter, 708 So.2d 266 (Fla. 1998); Foley v. Morris, 339 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1976). We decline the Parole Commission's invitation to employ the "tipsy coachman" rule and affirm on grounds that appellant's claim is nonetheless barred by the doctrine of laches. The circuit court made no factual findings concerning the equitable considerations inherent in resolving a laches claim, and it would be inappropriate for us to do so in the context of this appeal.

Accordingly, the order denying appellant's petition for writ of mandamus is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BROWNING, C.J., BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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