Chmura v. Maxson

4 Citing cases

  1. Snell v. Mott's Contracting Servs., Inc.

    141 So. 3d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that arbitrator could not award attorneys' fees under Florida Statute 713.29 because it only permitted courts to award fees

    Our narrow standard of review in a second-tier certiorari proceeding is limited to two questions: “(1) whether the circuit court afforded the petitioner procedural due process, and (2) whether the circuit court ‘applied the correct law’ or ‘departed from the essential requirements of the law.’ ” Chmura v. Maxson, 46 So.3d 158, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Bennett v. State, 23 So.3d 782, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)). In this case, we are only concerned with the latter question.

  2. Snell v. Mott's Contracting Servs., Inc.

    Case No. 2D13-2836 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May. 21, 2014)

    Our narrow standard of review in a second-tier certiorari proceeding is limited to two questions: "(1) whether the circuit court afforded the petitioner procedural due process, and (2) whether the circuit court 'applied the correct law' or 'departed from the essential requirements of the law.' " Chmura v. Maxson, 46 So. 3d 158, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Bennett v. State, 23 So. 3d 782, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)). In this case, we are only concerned with the latter question.

  3. Mocio v. State

    98 So. 3d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    We hold that the circuit court's outright refusal to review the denial of Mocio's assertion of immunity rises to the level of this type of serious misapplication of the law. Cf. Chmura v. Maxson, 46 So.3d 158, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding it was a miscarriage of justice for the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity to refuse to reinstate an appeal based on a party's failure to file a reply brief). In conclusion, the circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice by determining that a writ of prohibition was not the proper vehicle for challenging the propriety of the county court's ruling on the immunity issue and its continued exercise of jurisdiction over Mocio.

  4. Mocio v. State

    Case No. 2D11-5462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2012)

    We hold that the circuit court's outright refusal to review the denial of Mocio's assertion of immunity rises to the level of this type of serious misapplication of the law. Cf. Chmura v. Maxson, 46 So. 3d 158, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding it was a miscarriage of justice for the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity to refuse to reinstate an appeal based on a party's failure to file a reply brief). In conclusion, the circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice by determining that a writ of prohibition was not the proper vehicle for challenging the propriety of the county court's ruling on the immunity issue and its continued exercise of jurisdiction over Mocio.