In Re Amendments to Florida Rules

609 So. 2d 516, 1992 WL 323929
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 22, 1992
Docket79619
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 609 So. 2d 516 (In Re Amendments to Florida Rules) 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
In Re Amendments to Florida Rules, 609 So. 2d 516, 1992 WL 323929 (Fla. 1992).

Opinion

609 So.2d 516 (1992)

In re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE Procedure.

No. 79619.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 22, 1992.

Alan T. Dimond, President, The Florida Bar, Miami, Patricia A. Seitz, Presidentelect, The Florida Bar, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, and Paul R. Regensdorf, *517 Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Anthony C. Musto, Miami, James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, and Thornton J. Williams, Gen. Counsel, and Thomas F. Capshew, Appellate Atty., Florida Dept. of Transp., Tallahassee, responding.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar Appellate Court Rules Committee has submitted for our consideration its quadrennial report of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130.[1] The Board of Governors of the Florida Bar has given unanimous approval to the proposed amendments. After full consideration of the recommendations of the Appellate Rules Committee, and the comments received from interested members of the Bar, we amend the rules as set forth below. While we have adopted, in large part, the Committee's recommendations, we have modified the proposed rules where we deemed necessary.

At this time we do not accept the Committee's proposed amendments to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) (review of non-final orders), rule 9.140(c)(1)(I) (appeals by the state), or rule 9.330(a) (rehearing, clarification, or certification).

The following is a brief explanation of the substantive rule changes approved by this Court.

Rule 9.010 is amended to eliminate the statement that the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure supercede all conflicting rules.

Rule 9.020(g) is amended to ensure that an authorized motion for clarification falls within those types of motions that delay rendition. Subdivision (g) is further amended to clarify that, in a multiparty situation, a single order can be "rendered" at different times depending upon when the trial court resolved authorized post-trial motions between particular parties.

Rule 9.040(h) is amended to provide that the failure to attach conformed copies of the order or orders designated in the notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect.

Rule 9.100(b) is amended to eliminate the practice of bringing original proceedings on the relation of the state and requires that all parties in the lower tribunal be named as either petitioners or respondents. Subdivision (c) is amended to create a special category for appellate review of final quasi-judicial actions of various agencies, boards, and commissions of local government.

Rule 9.110(m) is amended to expressly allow a premature appeal to be perfected by the filing of a final order prior to dismissal.

Rules 9.110(d), 9.130(c), and 9.160(c), and the forms contained at rule 9.900(a), (c), and (e), are amended to require that, except in criminal cases, a conformed copy of the order or orders designated in the notice of appeal be attached to the notice or sent within 30 days to the reviewing court.

Rule 9.130 is amended to permit appeals from non-final orders granting or denying the certification of a class and from the appointment of a receiver or the termination of a receivership. Subdivision (a)(3)(C)(vi) incorporates the amendment approved in Mandico v. Taos Construction, Inc., 605 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1992), permitting appeals from non-final orders that determine that a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law.

Rule 9.140(b)(3)(A)(v) is amended, among other things, to prohibit the withdrawal of private counsel in public-funded cases until substitute counsel has been obtained or appointed. Rule 9.140(g) is amended to ensure that denials of motions made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) have a specific review path to the appellate courts. We reject at this time, however, the additional proposal that would have eliminated briefs, except by court permission, for 3.800 and 3.850 appeals.

*518 Rule 9.200 is amended to standardize the lower court clerk's procedure with respect to the placement and pagination of the transcript in the record on appeal.

Rule 9.210(a)(2) is rewritten to require that all typewritten material in briefs, whether in the text or in footnotes, will be of the same size and the same spacing. Subdivision (g) is amended to provide that notices of supplemental authority may call the court's attention to any authority discovered after the last brief was served. The amendment further provides that the notices may identify briefly the points on appeal to which the supplemental authorities are pertinent.

Rule 9.220 is amended to encourage the reduction of 8.5 by 14 inch appendix documents to 8.5 by 11 inches, if practical, and requires such documents to be bound separately if reduction is impractical.

Rule 9.300(b) is amended to provide that orders extending the time for the preparation of the record, the index to the record, or a transcript, automatically extend for the same period the time for service of the initial brief.

Rule 9.310(c)(1) is amended to eliminate the ability of a party posting a bond to do so through the use of two personal sureties.

Rule 9.800 is updated to make the citation format more accurate and uniform, and was amended to clarify that the rule applies to all legal documents, including court opinions. The amended rule makes clear that the abbreviation for the Southern Reporter, Second Series should appear, as it does in The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (15th ed. 1992), with a space between the "So." and the "2d." The abbreviations for "Florida Law Weekly" and "Florida Law Weekly Federal" are changed to "Fla. L. Weekly" and "Fla. L. Weekly Fed.," respectively. Also, the wording "except in footnotes" is deleted from subdivision (o) to clarify that case names should be underscored in both text and footnotes. Finally, subdivision (k) is amended to indicate that, when citing decisions of the United States Supreme Court, all subsequent citations and pinpoint citations shall be to the United States Reports only.

Appended to this opinion are the new Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Deletions are indicated by the use of struck through type. New language is indicated by underscoring. Committee comments are included for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. These amendments shall become effective January 1, 1993, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

                   FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
9.010.  EFFECTIVE DATE AND SCOPE                                  [AMENDED]
9.020.  DEFINITIONS                                               [AMENDED]
9.030.  JURISDICTION OF COURTS                                    [AMENDED]
9.040.  GENERAL PROVISIONS                                        [AMENDED]
9.100.  ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS                                      [AMENDED]
9.110.  APPEAL PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW FINAL ORDERS                 [AMENDED]
        OF LOWER TRIBUNALS AND ORDERS GRANTING NEW
        TRIAL IN JURY AND NON-JURY CASES
9.120.  DISCRETIONARY PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW DECISIONS             [AMENDED]
        OF DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
9.125. 

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

Related

Florida Highway Patrol, a division etc. v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, as Per. Rep. etc.
238 So. 3d 430 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Highwoods DLF EOLA, LLC v. Condo Developer, LLC
51 So. 3d 570 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp.
55 So. 3d 567 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
Smith v. State
980 So. 2d 1284 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
858 So. 2d 1013 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Martin v. State
747 So. 2d 386 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Rivera v. State
728 So. 2d 1165 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Key Club Associates, Ltd. v. Mayer
718 So. 2d 346 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
St. Paul v. IINA
675 So. 2d 590 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
Kennedy v. Alberto
649 So. 2d 286 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Perez-Priego v. Bayside Carburetor & Ignition Corp.
633 So. 2d 1190 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
609 So. 2d 516, 1992 WL 323929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rules-fla-1992.