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.

LIFESTREAM BEHAVIORAL CENTER, INC. vs JOHN ALLERTON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN ZACHARY ALLERTON

Citation: Not availableDocket: 22-2784

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 29, 2023; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida addressed Case No. 5D22-2784 involving Lifestream Behavioral Center, Inc. as the petitioner against John Allerton, as personal representative of the estate of John Zachary Allerton, the respondent. The petition sought certiorari review of an order from the Circuit Court for Lake County, presided over by Judge Michael G. Takac. Legal representation for the petitioner included Michael R. D’Lugo from Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy Ford, P.A., while the respondent was represented by Andrew A. Harris and Michael J. Brevda. The court issued a per curiam decision on August 29, 2023, denying the petition. Judges Jay, Kilbane, and MacIver concurred with the decision. The ruling is not final until any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certiorari Review Standards

Application: The court evaluated the petition seeking certiorari review of an order from the Circuit Court for Lake County.

Reasoning: The petition sought certiorari review of an order from the Circuit Court for Lake County, presided over by Judge Michael G. Takac.

Finality of Appellate Decisions

Application: The ruling is not considered final until any motions under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 are resolved.

Reasoning: The ruling is not final until any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.

Per Curiam Decision

Application: The appellate court issued a unanimous decision without a detailed opinion, denying the petition.

Reasoning: The court issued a per curiam decision on August 29, 2023, denying the petition.