AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.140 AND 9.600
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 District Court of Appeal adopted amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600 concerning the jurisdiction of lower tribunals pending appellate review, while deferring consideration of proposed changes to Rule 9.140 for later cyclical review.
The Court adopted the proposed amendment to Rule 9.600, effective immediately upon release of the opinion. The Court deferred consideration of the proposed amendment to Rule 9.140 pending its review of other proposed rule changes during the regular cyclical review process.
[1] A court may adopt amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure following publication and consideration of public comments.
[2] A proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 will be deferred for consideration during the regular cyclical review of court rules.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Only the court may grant an extension of time for any act required by these rules. Before the record is transmitted, the lower tribunal shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the court to render orders on any other procedural matter relating to the cause, subject to the control of the court.”
Establishes the framework for concurrent jurisdiction between appellate and lower courts during appellate review
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Bar and its Appellate Court Rules Committee filed an Emergency Petition to Amend Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.140 and 9.600. The…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court upon the Emergency Petition to Amend Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.140 and 9.600 filed by the Florida Bar and its Appellate Court Rules Committee.
The proposed changes have been published and the Court has received a number of comments. Upon consideration thereof, it is the view and order of the Court that the proposed amendment to Rule 9.600 should be adopted at this time, effective upon release of this opinion. The amended rule and the commentary thereto are attached to this opinion as Appendix A. However, consideration of the proposed change to Rule 9.140 will be deferred until the Court considers other proposed rule changes pursuant to the regular cyclical review of the rules of Court.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. APPENDIX A
RULE 9.600. JURISDICTION OF LOWER TRIBUNAL PENDING REVIEW
(a) Concurrent Jurisdiction. Only the court may grant an extension of time for any act required by these rules. Before the record is transmitted, the lower tribunal shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the court to render orders on any other procedural matter relating to the cause, subject to the control of the court.
(b) Further Proceedings. If the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal has been divested by an appeal from a final order, the court by order may permit the lower tribunal to proceed with specifically stated matters during the pendency of the appeal.
(c) Dissolution of Marriage Actions. In dissolution of marriage actions the lower tribunal shall retain jurisdiction to enter and enforce orders awarding separate maintenance, child support, alimony, attorneys’ fees and costs for services rendered in the lower tribunal, temporary attorneys’fees and costs reasonably necessary to prosecute or defend an appeal, or other awards necessary to protect the welfare and rights of any party pending appeal. Review of such orders shall be by motion filed in the court within 30 days of rendition. The receipt or payment of funds under an order awarding separate maintenance, child support, alimony attorneys’ fees, or costs shall not prejudice the rights of appeal of any party.
Committee Notes
1977 Amendment. This rule governs the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal during the pendency of review proceedings, except for interlocutory appeals. If an interlocutory appeal is taken, the lower tribunal’s jurisdiction is governed by rule 9.130(f).
Subdivision (b) replaces former rule 3.8(a). It allows for continuation of various aspects of the proceeding in the lower tribunal, as may be allowed by the court, without a formal remand of the cause. This rule is intended to prevent unnecessary delays in the resolution of disputes.
Subdivision (c) is derived from former rule 3.8(b). It provides for jurisdiction in the lower tribunal to enter and enforce orders awarding separate maintenance, child support, alimony, temporary suit money, and attorneys’ fees. Such orders may be reviewed by motion.
1980 Amendment. Subdivision (a) was amended to clarify the appellate court’s paramount control over the lower tribunal in the exercise of its concurrent jurisdiction over procedural matters. This amendment would allow the appellate court to limit the number of extensions of time granted by a lower tribunal, for example.
1994 Amendment. Subdivision (c) was amended to conform to and implement section 61.16(1), Florida Statutes (1991¡, Supp.), authorizing the lower tribunal to award temporary appellate attorneys’ fees, suit money, and costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Plante v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 685 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ss under Florida law is whether the statute gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what constitutes forbidden conduct.” Brown v. State, 629 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla.1994). In State v. Kahles, 644 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), approved, 657 So. 2d 897 (Fla.1995), this court set out the analysis to be applied by a trial court when faced with a vagueness argument. In a facial challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness of a law, a court’s first task is to determine whéther the enactment reaches a s…
-
State v. DE LA Llana, 693 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…e v. Kahles, 644 So. 2d 512, 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (urging the bench and bar to follow the step-by-step process set out in Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. in eases in which a criminal statute is attacked as unconstitutional on its face), approved, 657 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1995). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed, we reverse the order under review and remand this case for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. THREADGILL, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur. . A person who violates…
-
FOX v. State, 700 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…t of the facts at hand. Id. “A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.” State v. Kahles, 644 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), decision approved, 657 So. 2d 897 (Fla.1995) (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982)).1 [*174] As was the case in Barnes, our analysis begins and ends with consideration of the defendants’ conduct. S…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence