LAURI BURRIS, GREGORY F. BURRIS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the trial court was acting in excess of its jurisdiction, and therefore the petition for writ of prohibition is denied.
[1] A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy available only when a party demonstrates that an inferior court is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction, not m…
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 intelligencePetitioners Lauri Burris, Gregory F. Burris, Douglas O. Rowe, Ronald E. Brown, Jr., Jacob Chapman, and Melissa Burris sought a writ of prohibition cha…
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 Excess Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Inc., 605 So. 2d 850, 853 (Fla. 1992))). Going forward in the trial court, it will be the State’s burden to prove its charges that the substances allegedly misbranded by the Petitioners were drugs for purposes of chapter 499. See § 499.003(18), Fla. Stat. (2015) (defining a “drug” as that term is used in Part I of the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act).
WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992)
- Scott v. Francati, 214 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)