L.P. v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding L.P.'s request for appellate relief moot because the commitment order was effective for six months and more than six months had elapsed from the entry of the order
• holding L.P.'s request for appellate relief moot because the commitment order was effective for six months and more than six months had elapsed from the entry of the order
• addressing an issue raised on appeal, even though L.P.'s request for appellate relief was moot, because \it [was] an important issue [that was] capable of being repeated yet evading review\
• addressing an issue raised on appeal, even though L.P.'s request for appellate relief was moot, because \it [was] an important issue [that was] capable of being repeated yet evading review\
• “[W]e write to re-emphasis [sic] the requirement that a hearing must be held on timely-fíled exceptions to a magistrate’s report.”
• “[W]e write to re-emphasis [sic] the requirement that a hearing must be held on timely- filed exceptions to a magistrate’s report.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• D.F. v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2018-07-06· cited 2×
• LP v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-12-05
• D. F. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2018-07-06
• ARNE LANGSETMO v. KRISTEN MARIE METZA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2020-11-04

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Mazer v. Orange County
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-03-28· cited 26×
• Collado v. Pavlow
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-03-09· cited 13×