¶1This cause came on to be heard upon the original writ of habeas corpus and the respondent’s return. It now appears to the court that the petitioner was not entitled to the writ because his period of incarceration had not expired due to the provisions of the sentence that thirty days be added to the original period in the event he did not pay the costs, and his failure to pay the same.
64 So. 2d 176
Dixon v. Mayo
Decided April 7, 1953
Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1953-04-07
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1953-04-07
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1970
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →