IN RE FLORIDA APPELLATE 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.
The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 3.8 of the Florida Appellate Rules to clarify the jurisdiction of lower courts over procedural matters pending appeal, with particular attention to family law matters involving separate maintenance, support, and alimony payments.
The amended Rule 3.8 provides that the lower court retains supervision over procedural matters pending appeal but subject to appellate court control by motion. In family law cases involving alimony or support, the lower court may order continued payments pending appeal subject to discretionary suspension by the appellate court only for good cause. Acceptance of such payments does not waive the beneficiary's right to appeal the underlying order.
“After the entry of an appeal, but before the record-on-appeal is filed in the Court, the things required to be done in the lower court or appellate court and objections to things done, including the fixing or extension of time within which they shall be done, shall be under the supervision of the lower court, subject to the control of the appellate court by motion on proper notice.”
Establishes the basic allocation of jurisdiction between lower and appellate courts during pendency of appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is a rule amendment case, not a factual dispute. The court amended Rule 3.8 to provide comprehensive guidance on the lower court's powers after a…
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 Supersedeas Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
Rule 3.8, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., be and the same is hereby amended by striking all of present Rule 3.8 and inserting in lieu thereof the following to be known as Rule 3.8, viz.:
“Rule 3.8 Power of Lower Court
“(a) After the entry of an appeal, but before the record-on-appeal is filed in the Court, the things required to be done in the lower court or appellate court and objections to things done, including the fixing or extension of time within which they shall be done, shall be under the supervision of the lower court, subject to the control of the appellate court by motion on proper notice.
“(b) If an appeal is taken from an order or decree awarding separate maintenance, support or alimony, the lower court may in its discretion, upon proper notice and hearing, order the payment of separate maintenance, support or alimony pending such appeal in such amounts and under such terms and conditions as may be just and equitable. Such order shall be subject to super-sedeas only by the appellate court upon motion and for good cause and then only upon such conditions as shall be imposed by such appellate court, including the payment of attorneys’ fees. The acceptance of the benefits thereof shall be without prejudice to the rights of the beneficiary to raise as issues on the appeal the correctness of any of the terms or provisions of the original order or decree appealed.
“(c) A certified copy of any order entered by the lower court under this rule shall be filed by the moving party or parties with the clerk of the appellate court within 5 days after it is entered.”
This amendment shall take effect upon its being filed in the office of the Clerk.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, HOBSON, DREW, THORN-AL and O’CONNELL, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (40 total)
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)…ed. Supra, at 434. That, let there be no doubt, is an illusion, an unattainable standard. In tort cases, where punitive damages have become so fashionable, there is nothing comparable to the situation in Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, 131 So. 2d 740 (Fla.1961), in which the trial court found the just compensation verdict shockingly inadequate when compared to the condemnor’s estimate attending its declaration of taking. I assume that courts will rarely accept extra-record newspaper articles, ap…1 / 2
-
Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)…from the cold type of the record whether or not the state of the consciences of the jurors was such that a recommendation of mercy should have followed the verdict of guilty because, as we said in Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla., 131 So. 2d 740, conscience is the “ ‘ideas and feelings within a person * * *, [his] consciousness; inmost thought [and] mind * * ” But there is no occasion to pursue this aspect further since this court is empowered only to reduce the degree of an offense under S…
-
Russo v. Nolan Clark, 147 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1962)…District, reversing an order of the trial judge granting the motion of [*2] the defendant for a new trial and the decisions of this court in the cases of Cloud v. Fallis, Fla., 110 So. 2d 669, and Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla., 131 So. 2d 740. The jury had awarded the plaintiff a verdict of about $19,000 in an action for damages alleged to have been suffered as a result of an automobile collision for which the defendant was responsible. The defendant presented his motion for new trial…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 40 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence