MICHAEL RAMADANOVIC, APPELLANT,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Suarez v. Coral Gables Imports, Inc., 306 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
  …in the performance of the court’s judicial function.” Id. (citing State v. Almand, 75 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1954)). Hence, the clerk lacks “authority to judicially determine the legal significance of a document tendered for filing.” Collins v. Taylor, 579 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citations omitted). Applying these principles here, the clerical designation of the document was purely ministerial, and the closure stamp did not operate to convert the otherwise nonfinal order into a final order. Nonethe…
• Tanner v. State, 744 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
  …g it to the filing party. To the contrary, the courts have generally concluded that the clerk’s duties with regard to accepting papers for filing are ministerial. See, e.g., Faddis v. Carlton, 626 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Collins v. Taylor, 579 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Outboard Marine Domestic Int’l Sales Corp. v. Florida Stevedoring Corp., 483 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (clerk has ministerial duty to accept complaint for filing even though insufficient filing fees tendered); State ex rel.…
• Faddis v. Hon. Fran Carlton, 626 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
  …tition submitted. In response to the petition, the circuit court clerk stated that since it appears the circuit court has jurisdiction to review the petition for mandamus, the petition should not have been returned. As stated in Collins v. Taylor, 579 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), a circuit court clerk has a ministerial duty to accept and file petitions submitted, and does not have authority to judicially determine the legal sig [*1123] nificance of the document tendered. Since the circuit court clerk has…

Authorities Cited

• Ramadanovic v. Dep't OF Corr., 575 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)