IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.300
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 reinstated subdivision (d)(10) of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300, which had been deleted in 2006 amendments. The reinstatement was necessary because the deletion caused unexpected confusion and delays in appellate proceedings, despite the original amendment's reasonable administrative purpose.
The Court modifies rule 9.300(d) to reinstate subdivision (d)(10), effective January 1, 2008, to address the confusion and delays that resulted from its deletion.
[1] A court may modify its own rules of appellate procedure when the existing rule creates confusion and unexpected delays for litigants.
[2] A court may reinstate a deleted subdivision of a rule of appellate procedure if its deletion has proven problematic.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 Florida Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee had been informed that the requirements of rule 9.300(d)(10) placed an unnecessary administrative burden on litigants. Thus, the basis for the amendment appeared reasonable.”
Establishes the original rationale for deleting subdivision (d)(10) in the 2006 amendments
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2006, the Court amended rule 9.300 and deleted subdivision (d)(10) based on the Appellate Court Rules Committee's finding that the provision placed…
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 Rule Amendment Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In 2006, this Court adopted amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300, along with numerous other amendments to the appellate rules. See In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 941 So. 2d 352 (Fla.2006) (.Amendments). Since adopting the amendments to rule 9.300 that deleted previous subdivision (d)(10), the Court has studied the effect of the amended rule on proceedings in this Court. We have jurisdiction, see art. V, 2(a), Fla. Const., and we hereby modify the rule.
As stated in Amendments, The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee had been informed that the requirements of rule 9.300(d)(10) placed an unnecessary administrative burden on litigants. Thus, the basis for the amendment appeared reasonable. However, since the rule was amended, the deletion of subdivision (d)(10) has created confusion and unexpected delays for litigants. Thus, the Court modifies the rule to reinstate subdivision (d)(10).
Accordingly, the Court amends Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(d) as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring. The amendments shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2008.
However, because the amendment has not been published for comment, interested persons shall have until January 16, 2008, in which to file comments with the Court. An original and nine paper copies of all comments must be filed with the Court, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on Steven L. Brannock, Chair of the Appellate Rules Committee, Post Office Box 1288, Tampa, Florida 33601-1288, as well as 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. The Florida Bar has until February 5, 2008, to file a response to any comments filed with the Court. Electronic copies of all comments also must be filed in accordance with the Court’s administrative order In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004).
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. APPENDIX
RULE 9.300. Motions
(a) [No change]
(b) [No change]
(c) [No change]
(d) Motions Not Tolling Time.
(l)-(9) [No change]
(10) All motions filed in the supreme court, unless accompanied by a separate request to toll time.
Committee Notes
[No change]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (out of Cycle), 941 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2006)