ROBERT GERING
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A writ of certiorari cannot issue based solely on alleged trial court error regarding statutory interpretation when the relevant law is unsettled and does not constitute a clearly established principle of law.
[1] A writ of certiorari is unavailable to correct alleged trial court error regarding an issue of unsettled law; certiorari applies only when a ruling departs from a clearly…
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 intelligence“We would improperly expand certiorari jurisdiction by applying it to all cases where a party asserts only that the trial court erred regarding an issue of statutory interpretation without regard to the higher threshold of whether the ruling departed from the essential requirements of law.”
Court explaining the proper scope of certiorari jurisdiction
Gering filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County involving multiple lower tribunal case number…
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 Clearly Established Principle Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petition is dismissed. See Citizens Prop. Ins. v. San Perdido Ass’n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344, 355-56 (Fla. 2012):
There is an important difference between a departure from the essential requirements of law where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law and a case that involves an issue of law where the law is not yet settled. See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000) (“Unfortunately, there is no Florida case squarely discussing [this legal question]. Without such controlling precedent, we cannot conclude that either court violated a ‘clearly established principle of law.’ ” (quoting Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979, 982–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))). We would improperly expand certiorari jurisdiction by applying it to all cases where a party asserts only that the trial court erred regarding an issue of statutory interpretation without regard to the higher threshold of whether the ruling departed from the essential requirements of law.
See also In re Assignment for Benefit of Creditors of Miami Perfume Junction, Inc. v. Osborne, 314 So. 3d 604, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. SAN Perdido Ass'n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012)
- Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- In re Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Miami Perfume Junction, Inc. v. Osborne, 314 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)