From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heistand v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Apr 15, 2005
902 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2005)

Opinion

Case No. SC05-2.

April 15, 2005.


Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the requested relief, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is 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.). See also Florida League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1992); McAlpin v. State ex rel. Avriett, 19 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1944) (mandamus will not be issued if doing so would constitute a useless act or would result in no remedial good).

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., would request a response.

LEWIS, J., would dismiss.


Summaries of

Heistand v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Apr 15, 2005
902 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2005)
Case details for

Heistand v. State

Case Details

Full title:ARTY EDWIN HEISTAND, Petitioner(s) v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent(s)

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Apr 15, 2005

Citations

902 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2005)