HARRY SEYMOUR, AND ANNE SEYMOUR, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,

v.

TELLIS RUSHING AND CHARLAIN RUSHING, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• The Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. The Honorable Ben C. Willis, 370 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
  …(Fla. 4th DCA 1976) the court invalidated an administrative order of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit which circumscribed the power of the State to refile an information subsequent to entry of a nolle prosequi; and the same court in State v. Garrett, 310 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) quashed a general order of the Chief Judge of the Nineteenth Circuit which authorized electronic court reporting because it was deemed a local rule requiring prior approval of the Supreme Court. We consider that the problems wit…
• State v. Darnell, 335 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
  …rocedural grounds such as, for instance, double jeopardy. This court had occasion to consider whether a certain general order of a Circuit Court was of a kind and magnitude so as to require prior approval of the Supreme Court. See State v. Garrett, 310 So. 2d 751 (4th DCA Fla.1975) (which question, certified by this Court, was later declared moot in 316 So. 2d 262, because, in the meantime the Supreme Court adopted a general statewide rule which encompassed the local rule.) It is our opinion that the Sectio…
• Hamlin v. State, 317 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
  …e trial court. It is also contended that General Administration Order No. 5 (1974) is void, as it has not been approved by the Supreme Court as required by Civil Procedure Rule 1.020(c). [See also Criminal Procedure Rule 3.025(b), State v. Garrett, 310 So. 2d 751 (Fla.App.1975)]. There is [*807] nothing in the record before us which shows whether or not the Supreme Court has approved the general administration order, therefore, we must presume that it has. Based on the record, this contention is without meri…