Swida v. State, 596 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Swida v. State, 596 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: JENNIFER BESS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2022-01-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) JENNIFER BESS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 214 (Fla. 1992); Swida v. State, 596 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 1992); Archer v. State, 681 So. 2d 296 , 297–98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 4
cited Cited "see, e.g." L.B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Swida v. State, 596 So.2d 670 (Fla.1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Christine SWIDA
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 79070.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Apr 2, 1992.
596 So. 2d 670
Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and James T. Miller, Asst. Public Defender, Jacksonville, for petitioner., Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Kathleen E. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
Barkett, Grimes, Harding, Kogan, McDonald, Overton, Shaw.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

We have for review Swida v. State, 589 So.2d 1037, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question of great public importance:

WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT HAS BEEN RELEASED FROM THAT COMMITMENT PRIOR TO DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS, WHAT SHOWING MUST SHE MAKE[*671] TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF MOOTNESS?

In Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla.1992), we addressed this same issue, however, we restated the question to read as follows:

Does an appeal from a civil commitment order under The Baker Act, section 394.-467, Florida Statutes (1989), become moot solely because the person subject to that order has already been released?

In Godwin, we answered the restated question in the negative and quashed the district court’s opinion. In light of our decision in Godwin, we quash the decision below and remand the instant case for proceedings consistent with Godwin.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.