Opinion
Case No. SC08-119, SC08-120, SC08-121, SC08-122, SC08-123, SC08-124, SC08-126, SC08-127, SC08-128.
May 22, 2008.
Lower Tribunal No(s). 1D07-144, 1D07-1796, 1D07-1798, 1D07-1800, 1D07-1801, 1D07-2570, 1D07-3284, 1D07-3285, 1D07-3286.
The above cases are hereby consolidated on the Court's own motion.
Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus compelling the First District Court of Appeal to rule in the above listed lower tribunal numbers, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the consolidated petitions for writ of mandamus are hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (stating that in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, petitioner must show clear legal right to performance of requested act, that respondent has indisputable legal duty to perform that act, and that no other adequate remedy exists).
ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.