IN RE AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.630(C)
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 corrected Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630(c) by restoring a provision requiring common law certiorari complaints to be filed within 30 days, which was inadvertently omitted during a quadrennial rules revision.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630(c) is corrected to restore the omitted language requiring common law certiorari complaints to be filed within 30 days of rendition.
[1] A scrivener's error in omitting language from a rule during quadrennial revision may be corrected by the court on its own motion when the omission was unintentional and c…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the quadrennial revision of Florida rules in 1992, a portion of Rule 1.630(c) specifying a 30-day filing deadline for common law certiorari com…
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 Scrivener'S Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On its own motion, this Court finds that, through a scrivener’s error, a portion of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630(c) was inadvertently omitted during the last quadrennial revision of the Florida rules. Before the revision, rule 1.630(c) read as follows:
(c) Time. A complaint shall be filed within the time provided by law, except that a complaint for common law certiorari shall be filed within 30 days of rendition of the matter sought to be reviewed.
(Emphasis added.) During the quadrennial revision process, we issued In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 604 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1992), in which the underlined portion of the rule was omitted. Even though this modification constituted a major change in the rule, nothing was noted in the opinion concerning the elimination of the thirty day filing requirement for certiorari petitions. This Court had no intention of modifying, amending, or changing that portion of the rule. Accordingly, rule 1.630(c) is hereby corrected as follows to include the omitted portion of the rule:
This rule correction shall become effective immediately upon the filing of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RULE.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Mitchel Westerheide v. State, 767 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…faith and fear. . See Robert Bilbrey, Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators: A Misguided Attempt to Solve a Serious Problem, Journal of The Missouri Bar, Vol. 55,No. 6 (Nov.Dee. 1999). . § 394.918, Fla. Stat. . See, e.g., Cuda v. State, 639 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1994) (terms "improper” and "illegal” as used in statute making it a crime to financially exploit aged persons or disabled adults were unconstitutionally vague); Brake v. State, 746 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) [*661] (crime of luring a child…
-
Goin v. Comm'n ON Ethics, 658 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…vagueness in a statute. The often-cited standard for vagueness, a standard upon which both parties to this appeal agree, is whether the statute gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what constitutes forbidden conduct. Cuda v. State, 639 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1994); Brown v. State, 629 So. 2d 841 (Fla.1994). A reviewing court must find a statute unconstitutionally vague if the statute fails to give adequate notice or the requisite definite warning of what conduct is prohibited. Papachristou v. City…
-
Whitaker v. Dep't of Ins. & Treas., 680 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties and conveys a sufficiently definite warning of the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. State v. Wershow, 343 So. 2d 605, 609 (Fla.1977); Cuda v. State, 639 So. 2d 22 (Fla.l994)(terms “improper” and “illegal” as used in statute making it a crime to financially exploit aged persons or disabled adults, were unconstitutionally vague). A court cannot amend a statute by construction in order to bring the statute withi…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 604 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1992)