Amendments to Rules of Appellate Procedure

941 So. 2d 352, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 732, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 2544, 2006 WL 3025623
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 26, 2006
DocketSC06-159
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 941 So. 2d 352 (Amendments to Rules of Appellate Procedure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amendments to Rules of Appellate Procedure, 941 So. 2d 352, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 732, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 2544, 2006 WL 3025623 (Fla. 2006).

Opinion

941 So.2d 352 (2006)

In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE (OUT OF CYCLE).

No. SC06-159.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 26, 2006.

Edward Maurice Mullins, Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, Astigarraga, Davis, Mullins and Grossman, P.A., Miami, Jack R. Reiter, Past Chair, Adorno and Ross, Miami, and Jack F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Ryan Thomas Truskoski, Orlando, Florida, Alan Abramowitz, Chair, Juvenile Court Rules Committee, Orlando, John Walsh, Managing Attorney, Legal Aid Society, Foster Children's Project, West Palm Beach, Dennis W. Moore, General Counsel and Thomas Wade Young, Appellate Counsel, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Orlando, Responding with comments.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee (Committee) has filed an out-of-cycle report[1] of proposed amendments in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140(e). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

BACKGROUND

The Committee proposes amendments to rules 9.120 (Discretionary Proceedings to Review Decisions of District Courts of Appeal); 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Non-Final Orders and Specified Final Orders); 9.146 (Appeal Proceedings in Juvenile Dependency and Termination of Parental Rights Cases and Cases Involving Families and Children in Need of Services); 9.180 (Appeal Proceedings to Review Workers' Compensation Cases); 9.200 (The Record); 9.210 (Briefs); 9.300 (Motions); and 9.370 (Amicus Curiae). As required by rule 2.140(b)(2), prior to submission to the Court, a summary of the proposed rule amendments was published in the November 1, 2005, edition of The Florida Bar News and on the internet web site of The Florida Bar. No comments were received. The Committee filed its report with the Court on February 1, 2006, and the Court republished a summary of the proposals for comment in the March 1, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News, and several comments were filed.

The Committee later filed in this Court a supplemental report proposing amendments to rule 9.140 (Appeal Proceedings in Criminal Cases) to correct a typographical mistake, a scrivener's error, and a stylistic change; this proposal was not published for comment. Having considered the Committee's reports, we adopt the amendments proposed by the Committee with the exceptions and modifications discussed below.

AMENDMENTS

First, with respect to rule 9.120, which governs discretionary proceedings to review decisions of the district courts of appeal, the Committee proposes deleting language that bars the filing of jurisdictional briefs in certified question and direct conflict cases. The effect of the amendment would be to require jurisdictional briefs when a district court certifies a question of great public importance or certifies direct conflict under rules 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) or *353 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi). Currently, rule 9.120(d) does not allow parties to file jurisdictional briefs in such cases. In considering this amendment, the Court has concluded that whereas jurisdictional briefing in cases of certified direct conflict would be beneficial to the Court, jurisdictional briefing in cases involving certified questions of great public importance would not be beneficial at this point; the Court routinely screens the latter group of cases on submission to make a preliminary determination concerning jurisdiction. We note, however, that the parties in cases involving certified questions of great public importance should continue to discuss in their merits briefs why the certified question is of great public importance.

Accordingly, we adopt a modified version of the proposed amendment to rule 9.120(d) as follows:

(d) Briefs on Jurisdiction. Petitioner's brief, limited solely to the issue of the supreme court's jurisdiction and accompanied by an appendix containing only a conformed copy of the decision of the district court of appeal, shall be served within 10 days of filing the notice. Respondent's brief on jurisdiction shall be served within 20 days after service of petitioner's brief. Formal requirements for both briefs are specified in rule 9.210. No reply brief shall be permitted. If jurisdiction is invoked under rules 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) or (a)(2)(A)(vi) (certifications of questions of great public importance by the district courts to the supreme court), no briefs on jurisdiction shall be filed.

Next, the Committee proposes several changes to rule 9.130. First, the Committee proposes that subdivision (a)(3)(C)(ii) be amended to allow appeals from nonfinal orders granting, modifying, dissolving, or refusing to grant, modify, or dissolve writs of replevin, garnishment, or attachment. Second, the Committee proposes that subdivision (a)(3)(C)(iii) be amended to authorize appeals of nonfinal orders determining the right to child custody in juvenile dependency and termination of parental rights cases. And third, the Committee proposes that subdivision (a)(5) be amended to reference the right to immediate review of any authorized motions for relief from judgment rather than enumerating the various motions for relief from judgment contained in the rules. Upon considering all these proposed amendments to rule 9.130, the Court declines to adopt them at this time. This matter currently is the subject of an ongoing study by the Court, and the Court will consider any proposed changes to this rule after that study has been completed.

The title to rule 9.146(b) is amended to read "Who May Appeal," instead of "Appeals Permitted." This is done to clarify who may take an appeal in matters covered by the rule and to confirm that the rule does not provide any independent right to appeal that exists outside rule 9.130 with respect to nonfinal orders.

Rule 9.200, which governs the record on appeal, is amended in two ways. First, subdivision (a)(2) is amended to provide that in dependency and termination of parental rights cases as well as in cases involving families and children in need of services, the original orders and judgments shall remain with the trial court, with copies being forwarded to the appellate court as part of the record. This is consistent with the treatment of similar orders in family law cases. And second, subdivision (b)(2) is amended to require court reporters to include an electronic version of the transcript with each hard copy designated for inclusion in the record on appeal. The Committee's report shows that none of the court reporters contacted by the Committee expressed any objection *354 to this procedure; certain courts already adhere to this practice, as do many attorneys; and the cost is nominal.

Rule 9.210(a)(5) is amended to address cross-appeals and to extend the page limitation for the answer brief/initial brief of appellee/cross-appellant from fifty pages to eighty-five pages. By letter to the Committee, Thomas Hall, Clerk of the Supreme Court, requested that the Committee inquire into this issue. After an exhaustive review of other jurisdictions, the Committee proposed the present amendment. This amendment facilitates a balanced presentation of argument by equalizing the number of pages available to both an appellant and a cross-appellant.

Rule 9.300(d), which addresses motions not tolling time, is amended to eliminate the requirement in subdivision (10) that a litigant seeking an extension of time in this Court must also file a separate request to toll time.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

S.M., the Mother v. Department of Children and Families
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
State, Office of Attorney General v. Shore
41 So. 3d 966 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Dept. of Children and Families v. RA
980 So. 2d 578 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
CB v. Department of Children and Families
975 So. 2d 1158 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300
967 So. 2d 194 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
Guardian Ad Litem Program v. DCF
972 So. 2d 871 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
941 So. 2d 352, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 732, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 2544, 2006 WL 3025623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-rules-of-appellate-procedure-fla-2006.