Search

In the article, the author presents a certiorari review of orders rejecting discovery in civil cases in appellate courts. Also cited are the exception to the rules on discovery of admissible evidence as introduced by district courts of appeal, the cases in which courts could grant review and quash orders denying discovery like the deposition of a material witness, ex parte communications, and the deposition of a party.

The article discusses how lawyers can challenge a Florida circuit court's decision denying a real estate developer client's case questioning a local government's disapproval of a proposed development project. Topics discussed include writ of mandamus, writ of certiorari, and the appellate remedy to appeal the court's ruling.

The article explores the application and expansion of the writ of mandamus as an avenue around the extant jurisdictional barriers present in judiciary of Florida. It mentions that Florida Supreme Court could exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review district court of appeal decisions rendered per curiam affirmed (PAC) for the extraordinary remedies. It also mentions that mandamus is appropriate in cases of usurpation of judicial power or clear abuses of discretion.

The article discusses American constitutional and civil rights laws in relation to the prompt judicial review of administrative decisions in the U.S. as of April 2013, focusing on the provision of due process to protect the interests of governmental clients. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is addressed, along with administrative licensing practices and procedures. The certiorari legal principle is assessed in regards to agency judgments. Prior restraints are examined.

The article discusses Florida litigation matters involving permit denials as December 2012, focusing on several practical tips for attorneys on the development of creative litigation strategies for administrative hearings. The use of a petition for a writ of certiorari to challenge a local government's quasi-judicial ruling is addressed in relation to Rule 9.100 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The state's Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act is also examined.

The article discusses Florida appellate practice as of March 2012, focusing on certiorari review of nonfinal court orders from trial courts. The steps taken by a reviewing court in deciding whether or not to grant certiorari are examined, including an analysis of whether or not the trial court committed an error. The Florida Supreme Court case Jaye v. Royal Saxon Inc. is also mentioned.

The article focuses on judicial review of writs of certiorari on nonfinal orders in the Florida Supreme Court. Topics include the three-prong test for certiorari based on the essential requirements of a law, the fairness of using a subjective test to determine a functional right, and how to reform the review test to produce enforceable judgments.

The article discusses the essential requirements of the law standard to show legal error during certiorari review in Florida. It mentions that the standard was adopted in Florida in 1899, but remains questionable as the high court was not clear on what court has the authority to raise the question. It remarks that the standard remains unclear as it is not enough to determined legal error.

The article focuses on the common law called certiorari that is issued by a higher court to its inferior jurisdiction requesting for case records needed to review legal judgments in Florida. It notes that the certiorari review started due to the need of the judicial power to review erroneous trial court orders for the good of the society. It notes that the state's Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction was eliminated in 1980 due to constitutional amendment.

The article discusses the process of right to appeal a ruling under the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Florida. It notes that the right to appeal a ruling is limited to the specific category, which are set in the state's rules. However, it also presented several extraordinary writs that could be sought as part of appellate court's jurisdiction including the quo warranto, habeas corpus and certiorari.

The article offers a synopsis of the extraordinary writs most courts use to review interlocutory orders and actions. The first is the writ of certiorari, which is generally used to review quasi-judicial orders of county, municipal or state agencies. Next is the writ of prohibition, which enables an appellate court to prevent lower tribunal from further exercising jurisdiction in an action. Writ of mandamus is also cited, which compels lower tribunal to perform ministerial act required by law.

The article discusses the standard of review in challenging the decision of a circuit court by means of common law under second-tier certiorari review under Florida law. The law is meant primarily to undertake a limited review of cases which do not require a second appeal and facilitate easier administration of justice. The author says that this would save a lot of time and resources usually consumed by multiple appeals and would enhance the effectiveness of the judicial process.

Assesses the certiorari review of local government quasi-judicial land use decisions in Florida. Deadline and requirements for filing a petition for writ of certiorari; Local government decisions reviewable via a petition for certiorari; Technical considerations when filing the petition; Standard of review applied by the district court of appeal in its certiorari review of the circuit court decision.

Examines second-level certiorari review of circuit court appellate decisions in Florida. Scope of review; Standard for second-tier certiorari review; Review of relevant cases; Arguments for findings of fact.

The article discusses the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in the 2013 case Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County which deals with the certiorari review process and the court's determination that the application of sovereign immunity will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to dispose of a legal case by way of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. According to the article, plaintiff Jose Lazzaro Rodriguez was mistakenly shot several times by a police officer who responded to a burglary call.