Moore v. Ake

Kevin MOORE, Appellant, v. Richard AKE, Clerk of the Circuit Court, and Betty Lauria, Official Court Reporter, Appellees.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 14, 1997.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-05-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The trial court dismissed Kevin Moore’s petition for writ of mandamus because he failed to serve the respondents within 120 days. We'reverse because the trial court had an obligation under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630 to review Mr. Moore’s complaint when it was tiled, decide whether it established a prima facie case, and issue an alternative'writ of mandamus if the petition was facially adequate. Staton v. McMillan, 597 So.2d 940 (Fla, 1st DCA 1992). The petitioner was not required to serve the respondent with the complaint and could not serve the alternative writ until the trial court had performed the tasks required of it under the'rule. .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Howarth v. Department of Corrections

Relies on 597 So. 2d 940 - Staton v. McMillan · 596 So. 2d 753 - Quigley v. Satz

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-05-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2017

7 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 →

¶1Kevin Moore, pro se.

¶2Gary W. Nicholson of Carson, Guemmer and Nicholson, Tampa, for Appellees.

¶3ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.

¶4The trial court dismissed Kevin Moore's petition for writ of mandamus because he failed to serve the respondents within 120 days. We reverse because the *698 trial court had an obligation under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630 to review Mr. Moore's complaint when it was filed, decide whether it established a prima facie case, and issue an alternative writ of mandamus if the petition was facially adequate. Staton v. McMillan,597 So.2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The petitioner was not required to serve the respondent with the complaint and could not serve the alternative writ until the trial court had performed the tasks required of it under the rule. See Quigley v. Satz,596 So.2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

¶5Reversed and remanded.

¶6FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.