Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Honeycutt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• court would not expand reading of Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C) to allow review of interlocutory order in a dependency case, noting apparent conflict with In the Interest of Unknown P., 546 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). [4] Formerly § 39.02(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989
• court would not expand reading of Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C) to allow review of interlocutory order in a dependency case, noting apparent conflict with In the Interest of Unknown P., 546 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). . Formerly § 39.02(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). . Formerly § 39.09(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).