IN RE RULE 1.080, SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND PAPERS, FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
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 modified Rule 1.080 regarding service of pleadings and papers in civil procedure, effective January 1, 1980, after receiving suggestions from interested parties during a comment period.
Rule 1.080 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, as modified following public comment, shall take effect on January 1, 1980.
[1] Rule 1.080 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of orders and judgments by the court to all parties at the time of entry, with exceptions for parties i…
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 Court had initially adopted Rule 1.080 on November 1, 1979, and invited interested parties to submit suggestions or objections by December 1, 1979…
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 Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In our opinion rendered November 1, 1979, Fla., 376 So. 2d 844, in which we ini [*MLII] tially adopted this rule, we afforded all interested parties an opportunity to present suggestions or objections to the Court no later than December 1, 1979. We have modified the rule in accordance with the suggestion received by the Court. The rule, as modified and appended to this opinion, shall take effect at 12:01 a. m., January 1, 1980.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
SUNDBERG, J., dissents for the reason that he does not believe this to be an emergency matter requiring amendment of the rule before expiration of the four year cycle in July, 1980.
ENGLAND, C. J., dissents and concurs with SUNDBERG, J.
APPENDIX
RULE 1.080
SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND PAPERS
(h) Service of Orders.
(1) A copy of all orders or judgments shall be transmitted by the court or under its direction to all parties at the time of entry of the order or judgment. No service need be made on parties against whom a default has been entered except orders setting a cause an action for trial as prescribed in Rule 1.440(c) and final judgments that shall be prepared and served as provided in subdivision (h)(2). The court may require that orders or judgments be prepared by a party, may require the party to furnish the court with stamped, addressed envelopes for service of the order or judgment, and may require that proposed orders and judgments be furnished to all parties before entry by the court of the order or judgment.
BOYD, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
That portion of the rule requiring courts to mail copies of orders and judgments to parties should be adopted. The portion permitting some judges to require lawyers or parties to leave addressed, stamped envelopes for mailing such copies should be rejected.
One reason for the adoption of article V of the Florida Constitution was to promote uniformity in the court system and another was to eliminate unnecessary expenditure of time and money. Confusion is caused and time is wasted by requirements by some judges that such envelopes be provided while other judges in the same system, or even in the same building, have no such requirement.
The rule is silent as to what will be the results when parties or their attorneys do not know, or forget, to leave such envelopes.
In this computerized space age such mailing expense should be part of regular court costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The NEW Jerusalem Church OF GOD, Inc. v. Sneads Cmty. Church, Inc., 147 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…putes may also be resolved by applying neutral principles of law). See Baldwin v. Mills, 443 U.S. 914, 99 S.Ct. 3105, 61 L.Ed.2d 878 (1979). Following remand, the Florida Supreme Court reinstated its previous decision in Mills. See Mills v. Baldwin, 377 So. 2d 971 (Fla.1980). This decision was also appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but certiorari was denied. See Baldwin v. Mills, 446 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 2964, 64 L.Ed.2d 839 (1980). The history of Mills makes it “apparent that Florida has made the d…
-
W.S. Townsend v. I.R. Teagle, 467 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…the states may utilize either of two theories when dealing with church property disputes: the neutral principles approach or the deference approach. Following the remand, the Florida Supreme Court reinstated its previous decision. Mills v. Baldwin, 377 So. 2d 971 (Fla.1980). This decision was also appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but certiorari was denied. Baldwin v. Mills, 446 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 2964, 64 L.Ed.2d 839 (1980). Therefore, it is apparent that Florida has made the decision to apply the defere…
-
Bethel AME Church OF Newberry v. Domingo, 654 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…iple of church structure which governs church property disputes, as articulated in the controlling case of Mills v. Baldwin, 362 So. 2d 2 (Fla.1978), vacated on other grounds, 443 U.S. 914, 99 S.Ct. 3105, 61 L.Ed.2d 878 (1979), reinstated on remand, 377 So. 2d 971 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 2964, 64 L.Ed.2d 839 (1980), requires that church property remain with the parent church where, as here, the church is hierarchical in structure. Given the trial court’s finding that the AME Church i…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Rule 1.080, 376 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1979)