descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Prichard v. Board of Regents ex rel. State University System of Florida

Citations: 860 So. 2d 1103; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18815; 2003 WL 22927242Docket: No. 1D03-3511

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 11, 2003; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

David Prichard has filed a petition for mandamus relief, asserting that the trial court granted a directed verdict on his discrimination claim in March 2003 but has failed to issue a written order, impeding his ability to seek appellate review. The court noted there was no timely response to its order to show cause regarding the petition, indicating no valid reason for the trial court’s delay in issuing a written order. Consequently, the court granted Prichard’s petition and directed the trial court to promptly provide a written order memorializing its ruling and entering final judgment. The decision was concurred by Chief Judge Wolf and Judges Ervin and Padovano.

Legal Issues Addressed

Court's Authority to Direct Issuance of Written Order

Application: The court exercised its authority to direct the trial court to issue a written order and enter final judgment, ensuring that appellate procedures could proceed.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court granted Prichard’s petition and directed the trial court to promptly provide a written order memorializing its ruling and entering final judgment.

Mandamus Relief for Failure to Issue Written Order

Application: The court granted mandamus relief because the trial court's failure to issue a written order on a directed verdict impeded the petitioner's ability to seek appellate review.

Reasoning: David Prichard has filed a petition for mandamus relief, asserting that the trial court granted a directed verdict on his discrimination claim in March 2003 but has failed to issue a written order, impeding his ability to seek appellate review.

Requirement for Timely Court Response

Application: The court determined there was no valid reason for the trial court’s delay as there was no timely response to the court's order to show cause regarding the petition.

Reasoning: The court noted there was no timely response to its order to show cause regarding the petition, indicating no valid reason for the trial court’s delay in issuing a written order.