In Re Clarification of Florida Rules of Prac. & Pro.

281 So. 2d 204
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 31, 1973
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 281 So. 2d 204 (In Re Clarification of Florida Rules of Prac. & Pro.) 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 Clarification of Florida Rules of Prac. & Pro., 281 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1973).

Opinion

281 So.2d 204 (1973)

In re CLARIFICATION OF FLORIDA RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE V, SECTION 2(a)).
In Camera.

Supreme Court of Florida, In Camera.

July 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Fla. Const., art. V, § 2(a), F.S.A., contains the following provisions:

"The supreme court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts including the time for seeking appellate review, the administrative supervision of all courts, the transfer to the court having jurisdiction of any proceeding when the jurisdiction of another court has been improvidently invoked, and a requirement that no cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought. These rules may be repealed by general law enacted by two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature."

The Legislature has the constitutional right to repeal any rule of the Supreme Court by a two-thirds vote, but it has no constitutional authority to enact any law relating to practice and procedure. See State v. Smith and Figgers, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972). The distinction between practice and procedure, which is regulated by the Supreme Court and substantive law which is regulated by the Legislature, is discussed in a concurring opinion, In Re: Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 272 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1972).

During the past session of the Legislature various laws were enacted which related to practice and procedure. This creates confusion in the judicial branch in that the laws as enacted are in conflict with or supplemental to various rules of practice and procedure. The Supreme Court has considered these laws as expressing the intent of the Legislature and has formulated rules of practice and procedure that attempts to conform with the intent of the Legislature and at the same time further the orderly procedure in the judicial branch.

We point out the provisions of Ch. 73-84, Laws of Florida. Section 2 repeals paragraph e. of Rule 3.16, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. This law passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and was within its constitutional powers. Section 1 of this law attempts to rewrite Rule 3.16, Florida Appellate Rules. This attempted amendment is beyond the powers of the Legislature as the Supreme Court is given *205 exclusive authority to promulgate rules of practice and procedure in the courts. In other words, under the Constitution the Legislature may veto or repeal, but it cannot amend or supersede a rule by an act of the Legislature. Rule 3.16, subd. e., Florida Appellate Rules, is amended so that it shall read in the form attached hereto.

Ch. 73-72, Laws of Florida, attempts to regulate voir dire examination during the trial by amending Fla. Stat. § 53.031, F.S.A., formerly Fla. Stat. (1965) § 54.13, F.S.A. This statute attempts to regulate practice and procedure, a matter solely within the province of the Supreme Court to regulate by rule. At the time the Civil Rules of Procedure were promulgated, there were various statutes in existence relating to procedure. The order adopting the rules (In Re: Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1967 Revision, Fla., 187 So.2d 598) provided that all statutes not superseded by the rules or in conflict with the rules shall remain in effect as rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. See Sun Insurance Office, Limited v. Clay, 133 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1961), where this Court adopted a statute as a rule.

The adoption as rules of the Court of all statutes which have not been superseded or may be in conflict with the rules is primarily a matter of convenience or administrative expediency. Such adoption avoids the question of whether a matter lies within the field of substantive law or procedural law.

The fact that this Court may adopt a statute as a rule does not vest the Legislature with any authority to amend the rule indirectly by amending the statute. In other words, an attempt by the Legislature to amend a statute which has become a part of rules of practice and procedure would be a nullity. This Court has considered Laws of Florida, Ch. 73-72, in connection with Rule 1.431(b), Florida Civil Procedure Rules, 30 F.S.A. relating to voir dire examination, and hereby amends the rule so that the same shall read in accordance with the attached amendment.

Ch. 73-27, Laws of Florida, relates to criminal procedure and authorizes the issuance of a notice to appear for certain crimes and violations. The Court has approved this procedure and appended hereto new Rule 3.125, of the Florida Criminal Procedure Rules. This rule supersedes only that portion of the statute included in the rule and the balance of the statute will remain in effect as part of the substantive law. Also, it was necessary to change the procedure set forth in the rules so as to comply with the requirements of the Florida Case Disposition Reporting System, and a suggested form is included which will enable the preparation of proper notices by the local officials. Rule 3.125 is hereby adopted.

Laws of Florida, Ch. 73-112 (Fla. Stat. (1973) § 61.181, F.S.A.), creating domestic relations depository filled a great need in the judicial system. Rule 1.611, Florida Civil Rules of Procedure, 31 F.S.A. as appended hereto, is amended for the purpose of including the benefits provided in Chapter 73-112.

The Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure are hereby amended in the manner set forth in the appended rules. These amendments and changes shall take effect on the effective date of the statutes to which they are related.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

Rule 3.16. Taxation of Costs

(e) Attorney's Fees. When attorney's fees are allowable by law for services in the appellate court the request therefor shall be presented by motion filed with the clerk of the appellate court at or before the time of filing the party's first brief. The motion for attorney's fees shall not be incorporated in the briefs or other bound papers but shall be filed on a separate paper. The assessment of attorney's fees *206 may be remanded to the trial court. If attorney's fees are assessed by the appellate court, the trial court shall have full and complete power and authority upon due application to enforce the payment of fees allowed by the appellate court.

Rule 1.431. Trial Jury

(b) Examination by parties. The parties have the right to examine jurors orally on their voir dire. The order in which the parties may examine each juror shall be determined by the court. The court may ask such questions of the jurors as it deems necessary, but the right of the parties to conduct a reasonable examination of each juror orally shall be preserved.

Rule 3.125. Notice to appear

(a) Definition. Notice to appear means, unless indicated otherwise, a written order issued by a law enforcement officer in lieu of physical arrest requiring a person accused of violating the law to appear in a designated court or governmental office at a specified date and time.

(b) By Arresting Officer. If a person is arrested for an offense declared to be a misdemeanor of the first or second degree or a violation, or is arrested for violation of a municipal or county ordinance triable in the county court, and demand to be taken before a magistrate is not made, notice to appear may be issued by the arresting officer unless:

(1) The accused fails or refuses to sufficiently identify himself or supply the required information;

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

Related

Taylor v. State
969 So. 2d 583 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Grice v. State
967 So. 2d 957 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
State v. Raymond
906 So. 2d 1045 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
Sun Elastic Corp. v. OB INDUSTRIES
603 So. 2d 516 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Leapai v. Milton
595 So. 2d 12 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Williams v. First Union Nat. Bank of Florida
591 So. 2d 1137 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Investment & Income Realty, Inc. v. Bentley
10 Fla. Supp. 2d 40 (Orange County Court, 1985)
Graham v. Murrell
462 So. 2d 34 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
State ex rel. Times Publishing Co. v. Patterson
451 So. 2d 888 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Livingston v. State
441 So. 2d 1083 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Rivers v. State
425 So. 2d 101 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Cox v. State
416 So. 2d 511 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Hart v. State
405 So. 2d 1048 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
State v. Critzer
381 So. 2d 301 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
In Re Florida Evidence Code
372 So. 2d 1369 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Wade
363 So. 2d 1180 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Raver v. Allstate Insurance
47 Fla. Supp. 166 (Pinellas County Circuit Court, 1978)
State v. Inman
347 So. 2d 791 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Clark v. Walton
347 So. 2d 670 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Greer v. Estate of Smith
342 So. 2d 1007 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 So. 2d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-clarification-of-florida-rules-of-prac-pro-fla-1973.