IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.130
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to expand appellate review of nonfinal orders. Specifically, the rule now allows appeals of orders that deny motions asserting sovereign immunity, federal civil rights immunity, or immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes, without requiring the trial court to first determine that a party is not entitled to immunity as a matter of law.
Yes, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 9.130 to expand appellate review of nonfinal orders denying motions asserting sovereign immunity, federal civil rights immunity, and immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes. The amendments remove the prerequisite that the trial court must first determine that a party is not entitled to immunity as a matter of law.
[1] Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders that deny a motion asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity.
[2] Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders that deny a motion asserting entitlement to immunity in civil rights claims arising under federal law.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Court, on its own motion, amends Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Nonfinal Orders and Specified Final Orders) to expand the availability of appellate review of nonfinal orders denying sovereign immunity, denying immunity in civil rights claims arising under federal law, and denying immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes.”
This quote establishes the core action taken by the court and the types of orders affected by the amendment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Supreme Court, on its own motion, reviewed and amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The amendment was made to broaden the sc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Court, on its own motion, amends Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Nonfinal Orders and Specified Final Orders) to expand the availability of appellate review of nonfinal orders denying sovereign immunity, denying immunity in civil rights claims arising under federal law, and denying immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(d). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained in the Court’s opinion in Florida Highway Patrol
v. Jackson, No. SC18-468 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020), which issues today with this opinion, we move subdivisions (a)(3)(C)(vii) (absolute or qualified immunity in a civil rights claim arising under federal law), (a)(3)(C)(x) (immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes), and (a)(3)(C)(xi) (sovereign immunity) of rule 9.130 to new subdivisions (a)(3)(F)(i), (a)(3)(F)(ii), and (a)(3)(F)(iii), respectively. The new subdivisions allow appeals of nonfinal orders that deny a motion that asserts entitlement to the types of immunity addressed in those subdivisions, removing the requirement that the orders “determine that, as matter of law, a party is not entitled” to the immunity asserted. If the trial court’s order denies a motion asserting entitlement to immunity, there is jurisdiction to review it, and the appellate court may review as much of the record as is necessary to resolve the question presented in the appeal. We ask The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee to consider whether subdivision (a)(3)(C)(v) (workers’ compensation immunity), which requires such a determination, should be similarly amended.
Accordingly, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion. Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to their adoption, interested persons shall have seventy-five days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.1 We specifically invite comments from The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee.
1. All comments must be filed with the Court on or before April 7, 2020, with a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. If filed by an -2-It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE