PATRICE KERR
v.
SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A litigant seeking mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on pending motions must demonstrate that he has taken the necessary actions to prosecute the case and bring those motions to the court's attention.
[1] In a civil case, a litigant bears the obligation to take necessary actions to prosecute the case to final disposition and to bring pending motions to the trial court's at…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is the litigant's obligation to take such actions as are necessary to prosecute the case to final disposition, and, in the course of that, to file such motions as may be necessary and bring those motions to the trial court's attention for a ruling.”
Court stating the applicable legal standard for litigants in civil cases regarding their duty to prosecute cases and obtain rulings on motions
Patrice Kerr filed a tort suit against public officials and other defendants seeking monetary and injunctive relief. He petitioned for a writ of manda…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tort Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
February 20, 2018 PER CURIAM. Patrice Kerr filed a tort suit against several public officials and other defendants, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Claiming the trial court has not timely ruled on his pending motions, Kerr seeks a writ of mandamus. But in a civil case like this one, “it is the litigant’s obligation to take such actions as are necessary to prosecute the case to final disposition, and, in the course of that, to file such motions as may be necessary and bring those motions to the trial court’s attention for a ruling.” Thomas v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 74 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Because Kerr has made no showing that he has taken such actions, his petition is DENIED.
JAY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Patrice Kerr, pro se, Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chadwin A. Stanley, JR. v. State, 74 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Thomas v. State, 74 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)