AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA PROBATE RULES
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.
Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to Florida Probate Rules 5.025, 5.340, 5.360, and 5.365, rejecting an argument that certain amendments were substantive rather than procedural.
The Court adopted amendments to Florida Probate Rules 5.025, 5.340, 5.360, and 5.365 as procedural rules, consistent with the Court's historical practice of adopting statutory enactments within its rules.
[1] The Florida Supreme Court may adopt statutory enactments as procedural rules, consistent with its historical practice and subject to legislative amendment.
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 intelligenceThe Florida Probate Rules Committee proposed emergency amendments to four probate rules. The Court received a comment from Henry P. Trawick, Jr., argu…
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 Substantive Vs. Procedural Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In our opinion dated October 11, 2001, Amendments to Florida Probate Rules, 807 So. 2d 622 (Fla.2001), we adopted amendments to Florida Probate Rules 5.025, 5.340, 5.860, and 5.365 proposed by the Florida Probate Rules Committee in its emergency petition. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the amendments and we have received one comment from Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Esq., for which we are appreciative.
We have considered Mr. Trawick’s comments. In regard to his comment that the amendments to rules 5.340(f) and 5.360(a) are substantive rather than procedural matters, this Court has a history of adopting statutory enactments in its rules (e.g., Code and Rule of Evidence 90.91, In re Florida Evidence Code, 638 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1993); Florida Probate Rule 5.050, In re Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure, 324 So. 2d 38 (Fla.1975); and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.160 (formerly 1.360), In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 196 So. 2d 124 (Fla.1967)), and we adopt these amendments in that manner. The legislature certainly will amend the statute if it considers an amendment appropriate, and the Court will respond accordingly.
The amendments to Florida Probate Rules 5.025, 5.340, 5.360, and 5.365 are adopted as published in our opinion dated October 11, 2001.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Grover Reed v. State, 875 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2004)…d the single most critical piece of hair evidence, the pubic hair. However, given Reed’s incriminating statements, trial counsel could not be found deficient under the standards of Strickland for not having the hair reexamined. See Gudinas v. State, 816 So. 2d 1095, 1101-02 (Fla.2002) (finding no ineffective assistance in not pursuing DNA testing in light of incriminating statements by Gudinas to his attorneys and other inculpating physical evidence). Nute also testified that he could have provided a “not very…
-
Dolan Darling v. State, 966 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2007)…provided a more detailed account with regard to the abuse, this Court has held that even if alternate witnesses could provide more detailed testimony, trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to present cumulative evidence. See Gudinas v. State, 816 So. 2d 1095, 1106 (Fla.2002); Sweet v. State, 810 So. 2d 854, 863-64 (Fla.2002). Therefore, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call Carlton as a witness during the penalty phase to present evidence which was generally presented by others. [*378] T…
-
Lynch v. State, 2 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2008)…alty-phase testimony, and this Court has held that “even if alternate witnesses could provide more detailed testimony, trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to present cumulative evidence.” Darling, 966 So. 2d at 377 (citing Gudinas v. State, 816 So. 2d 1095, 1106 (Fla.2002); Sweet v. State, 810 So. 2d 854, 863-64 (Fla.2002)). For the most part, the postconviction lay witnesses simply provided slightly more detail concerning the fact that Lynch was (1) a geeky, weird kid, a “Little Lord Fauntleroy,”12 w…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Florida Evidence Code, 638 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1993)
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 196 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1967)
- In re Fla. Rules of Probate & Guardianship Procedure, 324 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1975)
- Amendments to Florida Probate Rules, 807 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 2001)