A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-district Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal

In Florida, there’s a difference of opinion on how to handle conflicting rulings within the same district court. Some people think that the older ruling should be followed, while others think that the later ruling is more important. We’ll look at the history of this issue and how a specific case has caused confusion. We’ll also talk about different court opinions on how to resolve the conflict and suggest a solution. In 1957, Florida created three district courts of appeal with three judges each. Later, more judges were added to each court. From 1966 to 1972, later panels continued to overrule earlier ones. In 1972, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was amended, and intra-district conflicts were allowed to be reviewed. In 1978, formal en banc proceedings were proposed and later authorized as Rule 9.331 in 1980. In 1968, a Supreme Court opinion called Little said that in a conflict, the later decision controls. This caused confusion until the en banc rule was in place. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Little, the court’s jurisdiction changed, and a constitutional amendment was proposed to limit the court’s ability to resolve conflicts within the same district. A new rule was created to address conflicting decisions by different panels of judges. The Supreme Court also clarified that a later decision does not always overrule an older one. In 1992, the court took on a case to resolve a conflict between two district courts regarding the sentencing of life felonies. The Supreme Court dismissed a case because a later decision by the First District resolved a conflict in the law. However, there is still confusion among the district courts about whether older or later decisions should take priority. Some courts have ruled that later decisions overrule older ones, while others say that they are bound by their own previous decisions unless a higher court says otherwise. This inconsistency has caused confusion and conflicting rulings in different cases. The court changed its decision because it didn’t follow a previous ruling by the same court. They said that they wouldn’t have changed their minds without asking the full court first. Then a different case brought back an older ruling, even though it conflicted with a previous decision. In 2019, the Second District Court made a decision in the Schofield v. Judd case based on a previous case called Oren v. Judd. They said that any newer decisions from the court can’t override the older Oren case. This has caused confusion for lawyers and judges, unlike the 11th Circuit court where it’s clearer. In federal courts, when there are conflicting decisions on a legal issue, the 11th Circuit typically follows the older decision. In a recent case, the court used this approach to decide on the standard for probable cause in arrests. The court also used this approach in a case about attorneys’ fees, choosing to follow an older decision when there was conflict with a newer one. This way, the court tries to provide stability and consistency in its decisions. There’s some confusion in Florida about whether older court decisions are better or if newer ones are more important. A judge thinks that older decisions should always be followed, but another judge says that newer decisions should be followed instead. The problem needs to be settled by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, lawyers can help by pointing out conflicts in court decisions.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/a-not-so-little-problem-with-precedent-intra-district-conflict-in-florida-district-courts-of-appeal/