672 So.
2d 16
672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57
(Cite as: 672 So.2d 16)


Supreme Court of Florida.
The Honorable Joe A. WILD, As Acting Circuit
Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Petitioner,
v.
Robert Lee DOZIER, Respondent.
No. 85050.
Feb. 8, 1996.
Rehearing Denied April 11, 1996.
Defendant in felony case being tried in circuit court
petitioned for writ of prohibition claiming that county
court judge assigned to his trial lacked authority to
preside over his trial. The District Court of Appeal,
659 So.2d 1103, granted writ, quashed circuit judge's
order denying disqualification and administrative
order appointing county court judge for six-month
period, and certified question for review. The Su-
preme Court held that: (1) Supreme Court had exclu-
sive jurisdiction to review judicial assignments; (2)
county court judge was properly assigned succes-
sively and repeatedly in six-month assignments over
several years to preside in circuit court over half of
all felony cases in county; but (3) another county
judge was improperly assigned to hear cases.
Certified question answered, decision below quashed,
and petition for prohibition denied.
Kogan, J., filed opinion concurring in part and dis-
senting in part, in which Shaw and Anstead, JJ., con-
curred.
West Headnotes
[1] Courts 106 70
106 Courts
106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
106II(E) Places and Times of Holding Court
106k70 k. Designation or Assignment of
Judges. Most Cited Cases
County court judge may be assigned successively and
repeatedly in six-month assignments over several
years to preside in circuit court over half of all felony
cases in county. West's F.S.A. R.Jud.Admin.Rule
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 1
2.050(b)(4).
[2] Courts 106 472.2
106 Courts
106VII Concurrent and Conflicting Jurisdiction
106VII(A) Courts of Same State
106VII(A)1 In General
106k472 Exclusive or Concurrent Ju-
risdiction
106k472.2 k. Appellate or Supreme
Courts. Most Cited Cases
Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review
judicial assignments and litigant who is affected by
judicial assignment made by chief judge of judicial
district must challenge assignment in trial court and
then seek review in Supreme Court either by petition
for writ of prohibition or petition for relief under “all
writs” power. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 5, §§ 2(a, b),
3(b)(7).
[3] Courts 106 216
106 Courts
106VI Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction
106VI(B) Courts of Particular States
106k216 k. Florida. Most Cited Cases
District Court of Appeal lacked authority to review
administrative order reassigning county court judge
to circuit court duty. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 5, §
2(a, b).
[4] Courts 106 70
106 Courts
106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
106II(E) Places and Times of Holding Court
106k70 k. Designation or Assignment of
Judges. Most Cited Cases
Whether judicial assignment is proper “temporary
assignment” is not merely function of duration of
assignment, but rather successive nature of assign-
ment, type of case covered by assignment, and prac-
tical effect of assignment on circuit court jurisdiction
over particular type of case must also be considered.
West's F.S.A. R.Jud.Admin.Rule 2.050(b)(4).
 672 So.2d 16
672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57
(Cite as: 672 So.2d 16)


[5] Courts 106 70
106 Courts
106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
106II(E) Places and Times of Holding Court
106k70 k. Designation or Assignment of
Judges. Most Cited Cases
County judge was properly appointed to successive
six-month assignments to preside in circuit court over
half of criminal cases in county, where judge contin-
ued to do all his county judge work and criminal di-
vision was only one of several division in circuit
court. West's F.S.A. R.Jud.Admin.Rule 2.050(b)(4).
[6] Courts 106 70
106 Courts
106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
106II(E) Places and Times of Holding Court
106k70 k. Designation or Assignment of
Judges. Most Cited Cases
County judge was improperly appointed to six-month
assignment to preside in circuit court over half of
criminal cases in county, after another county judge
had been appointed to six-month assignment to pre-
side over other half of criminal cases in county, since
assignments in combination effectively usurped ma-
jor segment of circuit court work within county.
West's F.S.A. R.Jud.Admin.Rule 2.050(b)(4).
*16 Application for Review of the Decision of the
District Court of Appeal-Certified Great Public Im-
portance Fourth District-Case No. 94-1104 and An
Original Proceeding-Writ of Prohibition.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Joan
Fowler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief,
West Palm Beach Bureau, and *17 Georgina Jime-
nez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West
Palm Beach, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey H. Garland of Kirschner & Garland, P.A.,
Fort Pierce, for Respondent.
Louis B. Vocelle, Jr. of Clem, Polackwich & Vocelle,
Vero Beach, for Honorable L.B. Vocelle, Chief Judge
of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Amicus Curiae.
PER CURIAM.
[1] We have for review Dozier v. Wild, 659 So.2d
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), wherein the Fourth Dis-
trict Court of Appeal quashed an administrative order
of the Chief Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
assigning a county court judge to circuit court duty
and certified the following question to be of great
public importance:
MAY A COUNTY COURT JUDGE BE ASSIGNED
SUCCESSIVELY AND REPEATEDLY IN SIX
MONTH ASSIGNMENTS OVER SEVERAL
YEARS TO PRESIDE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OVER HALF OF ALL FELONY CASES IN A
COUNTY?
FN1
Id. at 1106. We have jurisdiction and quash the
decision under review.
FN1. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Since July 1990 the Honorable Joe A. Wild, Judge of
the County Court of Indian River County, has been
assigned by the various Chief Judges of the Nine-
teenth Judicial Circuit to serve for six-month periods
as an acting circuit court judge to preside over one
half of all felony cases in Indian River County. Dur-
ing this period, Judge Wild has continued to handle a
county court docket. In January 1994 the Chief Judge
assigned a second county judge to preside over the
other half of felony cases arising within the county.
In April 1994 the respondent, Robert Lee Dozier,
sought to disqualify Judge Wild from presiding over
his felony case, alleging that the judge had become a
“de facto permanent” circuit judge and therefore
lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. Judge Wild de-
nied the motion.
Dozier then filed a petition for writ of prohibition in
the Fourth District Court of Appeal, claiming that as
a county court judge assigned to de facto permanent
duty in the circuit court, Judge Wild lacked authority
to preside over his case. The district court agreed,
granted the writ, and quashed the order denying dis-
qualification along with the administrative order ap-
pointing Judge Wild through 1994. 659 So.2d at
1105-06. In holding the assignment invalid, the dis-
trict court relied on this Court's decisions in Payret v.
Adams, 500 So.2d 136 (Fla.1986), and Crusoe v.
Rowls, 472 So.2d 1163 (Fla.1985), but certified the
above question for our consideration. Judge Wild
seeks review.FN2
 672 So.2d 16
672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57
(Cite as: 672 So.2d 16)


FN2. The Honorable L.B. Vocelle, Chief
Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
who was not allowed to intervene in the dis-
trict court, has filed an amicus curiae brief in
support of Judge Wild's position.
First, Judge Wild claims that the district court lacked
authority to quash the administrative order assigning
him to circuit court duty. Judge Wild correctly points
out that this Court's decisions in Payret and Crusoe,
wherein judicial assignments were reviewed by the
district court, do not control because the district
court's jurisdiction was not challenged in those cases.
[2] After considering the issue, we conclude that this
Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review judicial
assignments. This authority derives from article V,
sections 2(a) and (b) of the Florida Constitution.
Article V, section 2(a) gives this Court authority to
adopt rules for the administrative supervision of all
courts. Article V, section 2(b) gives the Chief Justice
of this Court, as the chief administrative officer of the
judicial system, power to assign justices or judges to
temporary duty in any court for which the judge is
qualified and to delegate that power to the chief
judges of the judicial circuits.
Delegation of the Chief Justice's assignment power to
the chief judges of the judicial circuits is necessary to
the proper administration of our court system. This is
because, as the administrative officer of all courts
within a judicial circuit,FN3 the chief judge is *18 best
equipped to assess the needs of each trial court and to
allocate the judicial labor available within the circuit
accordingly. With this reality in mind, Florida Rule
of Judicial Administration 2.050(b)(4) expressly
authorizes the chief judges of the judicial circuits to
“assign any judge to temporary service for which the
judge is qualified in any court in the same circuit.”
We explained in State ex rel. Treadwell v. Hall, 274
So.2d 537, 539 (Fla.1973), that the rule FN4 delegating
the power to assign judges
FN3. Art. V, § 2(d), Fla. Const.;
Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.050(b)(2).
FN4. Florida Rule of Judicial Administra-
tion 2.050(b)(4) is substantially the same as
former Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.020(b)(3)(ii), which was approved in State
ex rel. Treadwell v. Hall, 274 So.2d 537,
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
539 (Fla.1973).
was designed, in part, to obviate the need for each
incoming chief justice to specifically delegate to the
twenty chief judges of the circuits the authority to
make assignments; it also was designed to obviate the
need for specific delegations when the chief judges
within the circuits were re-elected or changed. Unless
a chief justice indicates otherwise, his desire to con-
tinue delegation via the Rule is assumed.
When a chief judge exercises this delegated assign-
ment authority, the judge is acting under the Chief
Justice's constitutional power to make temporary ju-
dicial assignments to ensure the speedy, efficient, and
proper administration of justice within the various
circuits. Because of the vital role temporary judicial
assignments play in the administration of our court
system, this Court must have exclusive jurisdiction to
review such assignments under its article V, section
2(a) authority to oversee the administrative supervi-
sion of all courts. This grant of exclusive authority
ensures this Court's plenary control over the state's
court system and avoids the disruptive effect allow-
ing district courts to quash judicial assignments
would have on that system. Moreover, there is noth-
ing in our Constitution to indicate that district courts
are to share in the administrative supervision of our
trial courts, and we decline to read our Constitution
to sanction the disruption to the judicial system in-
herent in such shared authority.
Accordingly, we hold that a litigant who is affected
by a judicial assignment made by a chief judge of a
judicial circuit must challenge the assignment in the
trial court and then seek review in this Court by way
of petition for writ of prohibition or petition for relief
under the “all writs” power.FN5 SeeArt. V, § 3(b)(7),
Fla. Const. (this Court “may issue writs of prohibi-
tion to courts and all writs necessary to the complete
exercise of its jurisdiction”); accord State ex rel.
Treadwell v. Hall, 274 So.2d 537 (Fla.1973) (chal-
lenge of assigned judge's jurisdiction raised in trial
court, followed by petition for writ of prohibition
filed in this Court).
FN5. General questions concerning the ad-
ministration or management of the courts of
the circuit should be directed to the Chief
Justice through the state courts administra-
tor, as provided in Florida Rule of Judicial
 672 So.2d 16
672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57
(Cite as: 672 So.2d 16)


Administration 2.050(b)(3). Likewise, ad-
ministrative orders also may be challenged
as court rules or local rules by applying for a
determination by the Local Rules Advisory
Committee, as provided in Florida Rule of
Judicial Administration 2.050(e)(2).
[3] Accordingly, we hold that the district court of
appeal lacked authority to review the administrative
order assigning Judge Wild to circuit court duty.
However, we treat the petition for writ of prohibition
filed in the district court as if it had been filed in this
Court FN6 and address the certified question in an at-
tempt to further define the parameters of a proper
temporary assignment under rule 2.050(b)(4).
FN6. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
In Treadwell we approved an order appointing a
county judge to act as a circuit judge in DeSoto
County “in all matters of probate, guardianship, in-
competency, trusts, proceedings under the ‘Florida
Mental Health Act’ and all juvenile proceedings, dis-
solutions of marriage, and all uncontested civil mat-
ters in circuit court.” 274 So.2d at 538. Likewise, in
Crusoe v. Rowls, 472 So.2d 1163 (Fla.1985), we up-
held the successive and repetitive assignment of
county court judges to hear all petitions to enforce
child support orders that directed support payments to
be made through the child support section of the sher-
iff's office. In addressing whether the assignment was
proper, we explained that an *19 assignment is “tem-
porary” under rule 2.050(b)(4) if it is not “perma-
nent:”
“Temporary” is an antonym for “permanent.” It is a
comparative term. It can be said that if a duty is not
permanent it is temporary. If a county judge is as-
signed to perform solely circuit court work, the as-
signment must be for a relatively short time for it to
be temporary. If a county judge is assigned to spend a
portion of his time performing circuit work, the as-
signment can be longer, but the assignment cannot
usurp, supplant, or effectively deprive circuit court
jurisdiction of a particular type of case on a perma-
nent basis.
472 So.2d at 1165 (footnotes omitted). Where a
county judge is assigned solely to perform circuit
court duties, we suggested that a sixty-day assign-
ment was acceptable; where the judge is ordered to
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 4
spend only a portion of his time performing circuit
court work, we suggested that a six-month assign-
ment was acceptable. Id. at 1165 nn. 2-3. These time
periods were suggested with the recognition that
chief judges must be given flexibility to effectively
utilize available judicial labor. Id. at 1165.
Although the successive assignments at issue in Cru-
soe totalled two-and-one-half years, we upheld them
as proper temporary assignments in part because the
county judges were assigned only a limited class of
support orders and the assignment was to “supple-
ment and aid the circuit judges rather than to replace
them.” Id.
Shortly after the decision in Crusoe, this Court was
asked to further define the parameters of a temporary
judicial assignment under rule 2.050(b)(4). In Payret
v. Adams, 500 So.2d 136 (Fla.1986), the Court held
that a county court judge may not be indefinitely as-
signed, by successive orders, circuit court duties in a
specially created jury district. The county judge in
Payret had been annually reassigned for a five-year
period to be the acting circuit judge for a specially
created district of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. We
noted:
Rather than being assigned to aid or assist the circuit
judges in a limited class of cases, respondent has
been assigned to hear all circuit court matters in the
Glades district. Indeed, respondent has conceded that
for all intents and purposes, he is the circuit judge for
the Glades district.
Id. at 138. Under the circumstances, this Court held
the successive one-year assignments invalid as a de
facto permanent assignment. Id. at 138.
[4] These decisions illustrate that whether a judicial
assignment is a proper “temporary” assignment under
rule 2.050(b)(4) is not merely a function of the dura-
tion of an individual assignment. The successive na-
ture of the assignment, the type of case covered by
the assignment, and the practical effect of the as-
signment on circuit court jurisdiction over a particu-
lar type of case also must be considered. For exam-
ple, Crusoe illustrates that successive assignments
totalling more than two years may be considered
temporary if the class of circuit court case covered by
the assignment is limited and the practical effect of
the assignment is to aid and assist circuit judges
 672 So.2d 16
672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57
(Cite as: 672 So.2d 16)


rather than to usurp circuit court jurisdiction over a
particular type of case. 472 So.2d at 1165. Similarly,
Payret demonstrates that successive and repetitive
assignments that, when considered individually, may
be facially valid will not be considered temporary
where their practical effect is to create a de facto
permanent circuit judge by administrative order. 500
So.2d at 138.
In multi-county circuits the county judges in the less
populous counties are often underutilized, yet they
are willing to do circuit judge work. In some in-
stances there are no circuit judges resident within
those counties. The most efficient use of scarce judi-
cial resources dictates the assignment of county
judges to handle limited aspects of circuit judge work
in such counties, provided that the assignments do
not interfere with the full performance of county
judge duties.
[5] In the instant case, Judge Wild continues to do all
of his county judge work. In addition, Judge Wild has
received new assignments every six months to hear
one half of the criminal circuit court work. Obvi-
ously, the criminal division is only one of several
divisions of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court,
and Judge Wild is assigned to only *20 half of the
cases within that division. The orders appointing
Judge Wild more nearly resemble those approved in
Treadwell and Crusoe rather than the order disap-
proved in Payret. See also J.G. v. Holtzendorf, 648
So.2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (approving successive
six-month assignments of county judge to hear juve-
nile and domestic matters in circuit court), review
granted, 659 So.2d 271 (Fla.1995). Thus, we con-
clude that the successive six-month assignments of
Judge Wild to hear half of the cases in Indian River
County are permissible.
[6] However, we cannot ignore the fact that County
Judge Balsiger has now been assigned to hear the
other half of the felony cases in Indian River County.
To permit this practice to continue would have the
effect of permanently usurping a major segment of
circuit court work within the county. Therefore, we
direct the Chief Judge of Indian River County to
make the appropriate judicial reassignments in order
that county judges not be assigned to more than half
of the felony cases within the county. However, in
view of the fact that Judge Wild and Judge Balsiger
have each been sitting on felony cases pursuant to
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
valid orders, this directive shall not be construed to
mean that they have been without jurisdiction to hear
these cases.
We answer the certified question in the affirmative,
quash the decision below, and deny the petition for
prohibition.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, HARDING and
WELLS, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with
an opinion, in which SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ.,
concur.KOGAN, Justice, concurring in part and dis-
senting in part.
I agree that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to
review judicial assignments. However, I cannot agree
that the successive assignments at issue here are
proper temporary assignments under Florida Rule of
Judicial Administration 2.050(b)(4) and article V,
section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution.
The majority recognizes that an assignment is “tem-
porary” under rule 2.050(b)(4) if it is not “perma-
nent”:
“ ‘Temporary” is an antonym for ‘permanent.’ It is a
comparative term. It can be said that if a duty is not
permanent it is temporary. If a county judge is as-
signed to perform solely circuit court work, the as-
signment must be for a relatively short time for it to
be temporary. If a county judge is assigned to spend a
portion of his time performing circuit work, the as-
signment can be longer, but the assignment cannot
usurp, supplant, or effectively deprive circuit court
jurisdiction of a particular type of case on a perma-
nent basis.”
Majority op. at 19 (quoting Crusoe v. Rowls, 472
So.2d 1163, 1165 (Fla.1985)). It further recognizes
that, under our caselaw,
whether a judicial assignment is a proper “tempo-
rary” assignment under rule 2.050(b)(4) is not merely
a function of the duration of an individual assign-
ment. The successive nature of the assignment, the
type of case covered by the assignment, and the prac-
tical effect of the assignment on circuit court jurisdic-
tion over a particular type of case also must be con-
sidered.
 672 So.2d 16
672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57
(Cite as: 672 So.2d 16)


Majority op. at 19. The majority properly finds sup-
port for this proposition in this Court's decisions in
Crusoe and Payret v. Adams, 500 So.2d 136
(Fla.1986). As the majority notes, this Court upheld
successive assignments of county court judges to
circuit court duty in Crusoe, where 1) the class of
case covered by the assignment-a limited class of
support orders-was much more limited than the class
of case affected here-all felony cases-and 2) the prac-
tical effect of the assignment was to aid and assist
circuit judges rather than to usurp circuit court juris-
diction over a particular type of case. 472 So.2d at
1165. Whereas, in Payret, the Court held invalid suc-
cessive and repetitive assignments that when consid-
ered individually were facially valid because their
practical effect was to create a de facto permanent
circuit judge by administrative order. 500 So.2d at
138.
Although the majority recognizes the considerations
relevant to the determination at *21 hand, it fails to
consider those factors in the context of this case and
merely concludes, without explanation, that the as-
signments at issue here are more like those approved
in Treadwell and Crusoe than the assignments disap-
proved in Payret. Majority op. at 20. The Treadwell
decision lends no support to the majority's conclusion
because the issue in Treadwell was whether the chief
judge was authorized to assign a county court judge
to circuit court duty, not whether the assignment was
“temporary.” The majority appears to base its holding
on the need for “efficient use of scarce judicial re-
sources.” Id. at 19. While no one could dispute this
basic premise, it is equally clear that judicial re-
sources must be utilized within the constraints of our
constitution. This is what our decisions in Crusoe and
Payret teach.
Turning to the assignment at issue here, I agree with
the Fourth District Court of Appeal that it is a de
facto permanent assignment of a county court judge
to circuit judge duties, in violation of article V, sec-
tions 2(b) and 10(b) of the Florida Constitution. As of
April 1994, Judge Wild had been assigned in eight
consecutive administrative orders to preside over half
of the felony cases in Indian River County. Although
each successive assignment was limited to the six-
month term suggested by this Court in Crusoe, the
effect of the automatic reassignments was to give a
county court judge jurisdiction over half of all felony
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 6
cases arising in Indian River County for a period of at
least four years.
To my mind, the assignment cannot be considered
“temporary.” Such automatic reassignments have the
practical effect of creating a de facto permanent cir-
cuit court judge and are no different than the indefi-
nite assignment by successive order that was held
improper in Payret. Moreover, as of January 1994,
when a second county judge was assigned to preside
over the other half of felony cases arising in Indian
River County, circuit court jurisdiction over felony
cases effectively was redesignated by administrative
order, contrary to this Court's decision in Crusoe. The
majority recognizes as much when it states that to
“permit this practice to continue would have the ef-
fect of permanently usurping a major segment of cir-
cuit court work within the county.” Majority op. at
20.
Even under the majority's analysis, the petition for
writ of prohibition should be granted and the order
denying disqualification of Judge Wild in Dozier's
case quashed. Such relief is warranted because at the
time Dozier's felony case was assigned, he had no
chance of having it heard by a duly elected circuit
judge since jurisdiction over all felony cases had
been unconstitutionally placed in the hands of two
county court judges.
Accordingly, I would answer the certified question in
the negative, grant the petition for writ of prohibition
and quash both the order denying disqualification of
Judge Wild in Dozier's case and the administrative
order at issue here. Moreover, regardless of how this
case is resolved, I agree with Justice Anstead that this
Court should enact specific guidelines for making
temporary judicial assignments. See Wallace v. State,
609 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (Anstead, J.,
concurring specially). Thus, in the hope of eliminat-
ing much of the confusion that exists in this area, I
would ask the Judicial Administration Rules Com-
mittee to propose specific guidelines for assignments
made under rule 2.050(b)(4).
SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Fla.,1996.
Wild v. Dozier
672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57
 672 So.2d 16 Page 7
672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57
(Cite as: 672 So.2d 16)

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

 Date of Printing: Apr 20, 2009

KEYCITE

Wild v. Dozier, 672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57 (Fla.,Feb 08, 1996) (NO. 85,050)
History

Direct History

1 Dozier v. Wild, 1994 WL 524292, 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2068 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. Sep 28, 1994) (NO.
94-1104)
Opinion Superseded on Rehearing by
2 Dozier v. Wild, 659 So.2d 1103, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D199 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. Jan 18, 1995) (NO. 94-
1104)
Review Granted by
3 Wild v. Dozier, 652 So.2d 819 (Fla. Feb 27, 1995) (Table, NO. 85,050)
AND Decision Quashed by
=> 4 Wild v. Dozier, 672 So.2d 16, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S57 (Fla. Feb 08, 1996) (NO. 85,050), rehearing
denied (Apr 11, 1996)

Negative Citing References (U.S.A.)

Holding Limited by
5 1-888-Traffic Schools v. Chief Circuit Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, 734 So.2d 413, 24 Fla. L.
Weekly S239 (Fla. May 27, 1999) (NO. 94,314) HN: 2,3,4 (So.2d)
Distinguished by
6 Diaz v. State, 868 So.2d 1281, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D808 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. Mar 31, 2004) (NO. 4D03-
4016) HN: 2 (So.2d)

Related References
7 Dozier v. State, 662 So.2d 382, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2433 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. Nov 01, 1995) (NO. 94-
2178), rehearing denied (Nov 22, 1995)
Review Granted by
8 State v. Dozier, 669 So.2d 252 (Fla. Feb 13, 1996) (Table, NO. 86,956)
AND Decision Quashed by
9 State v. Dozier, 675 So.2d 110, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S199 (Fla. May 09, 1996) (NO. 86,956), rehearing

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 denied (Jun 17, 1996)
On Remand to
10 Dozier v. State, 677 So.2d 1007, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1933 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. Aug 28, 1996) (NO. 94-
2178)

Court Documents

Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Fla. Appellate Briefs

11 Joe A. WILD, Judge, etc., Petitioner, v. Robert Lee DOZIER, Respondents., 1995 WL 17015638
(Appellate Brief) (Fla. Feb. 03, 1995) Amicus Curiae Brief of L. B. Vocelle, Chief Judge of the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, in Support of Joe A. Wild, Judge, etc., Petitioner (NO. 85050)
12 The Honorable Joe A. WILD, County Court Judge, Petitioner, v. Robert Lee DOZIER, Respondent.,
1995 WL 17015639 (Appellate Brief) (Fla. Feb. 13, 1995) Respondent's Answer Brief on the
Merits (NO. 85050)
13 The Honorable Joe A. WILD, County Court Judge, Petitioner, v. Robert Lee DOZIER, Respondent.,
1995 WL 17015640 (Appellate Brief) (Fla. Feb. 17, 1995) Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits
(NO. 85050)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.