From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pearson v. Miami-Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 29, 1999
741 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

No. 98-2006.

Opinion filed September 29, 1999.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Dade County, Murray Goldman, Norman S. Gerstein, and Michael B. Chavies, Judges, L.T. No. 97-73AP.

Leroy Pearson, in proper person.

Robert A. Ginsburg, County Attorney, and David Stephen Hope, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FLETCHER and SHEVIN, JJ.


We treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari to review an opinion of the Circuit Court Appellate Division. We deny certiorari as the opinion does not depart from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Haines City Comm. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995). A courtesy warning is not required where there has been a repeat violation or "the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare . . ." § 162.21(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997).

Certiorari denied.


Summaries of

Pearson v. Miami-Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 29, 1999
741 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

Pearson v. Miami-Dade County

Case Details

Full title:LEROY PEARSON, Petitioner, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Respondent

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Sep 29, 1999

Citations

741 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)