Certiorari Review of Nonfinal Orders: Does One Size Really Fit All? Part I

In the past, astronauts said Tang was better than real orange juice, and designers made one-size-fits-all clothes that didn’t fit well. Florida courts use a test to decide on legal cases, but it’s not predictable and judges have to use their own judgments. The Florida Supreme Court has tried to make the test clearer, but it hasn’t worked. Lawyers should ask the courts to explain the test in a simpler way. This new explanation should consider why courts shouldn’t interfere with ongoing cases, but also when it’s necessary to do so. It should be easy to understand and make sense to everyone. This article discusses the history of common law certiorari in Florida and suggests a new approach to handling nonfinal orders in the courts. The authors propose creating precedent for different types of nonfinal orders, to make the decision-making process more uniform and transparent. They also plan to experiment with context-specific tests in the next edition of the article. The authors hope this will spark debate and lead to a more in-depth discussion of this important legal topic. Common law certiorari used to be rare in Florida, but it has become more common since the creation of district courts of appeal. Now, it is a tool used to review nonfinal orders. To be granted certiorari, the order must go against the law, cause harm in future proceedings, and not have a solution after a final judgment. In simple terms, the test for nonfinal orders in Florida can be traced back to a case called Kilgore v. Bird from 1942. It says that a higher court will only review an interlocutory order (a decision made during a case that isn’t final) if the lower court made a really big mistake, like going beyond its legal authority or making a decision that could seriously hurt the case. So, unless it’s a really serious mistake, you can’t just ask a higher court to review every decision that you don’t like – you usually have to wait until the end of the case and then appeal. The law has certain important requirements that need to be met when asking for a review of a court decision. The specific rules used for this review have been developed relatively recently and are still being figured out. The three-prong test used to determine if a review is necessary can be difficult to apply correctly. District courts sometimes struggle to follow the rules set by the Supreme Court, which leads to inconsistent decisions. In contrast, the district court’s review of nonfinal orders has not changed much. However, the case law shows that the standards for when the district courts should step into an ongoing trial court proceeding are not very clear. Terms like departure, essential requirements, and adequate remedy are all subjective and hard to define. It’s unlikely that many appellate judges would only review cases of “judicial tyranny.” Instead, we need to decide on the goals and policies for certiorari review and come up with measurable tests to achieve them. Subjective tests in law can lead to a lot of fancy talk instead of clear reasoning. When judges use vague phrases like “a clear departure from the essential requirements or a miscarriage of justice, it doesn’t really help make fair and consistent decisions. It can even make things more unpredictable. It’s like saying that a mistake in applying the law is different from using the wrong law, but it’s hard to tell the difference and there’s no good reason why they should be treated differently in court. It just adds more confusion and fancy language to the legal process. Basically, sometimes courts won’t review certain decisions in a trial if it’s just about money or if it’s not a big deal. But if there are big problems that keep happening, the rules might change to make it easier to appeal those decisions. Overall, it’s important for the courts to have clear rules for when they can review nonfinal decisions in a trial. The writ of certiorari is a legal tool used by appellate courts to review decisions made by lower courts. The main goal is to balance the need for finality in lower court decisions with the need for fair and accurate judgments. Appellate courts want to avoid interfering in lower court proceedings unless there is a clear and serious error that needs to be corrected. They also want to make sure they are using their resources effectively and only getting involved in cases where there is a real need for their intervention. Overall, the main concerns are providing a fast, efficient, and fair resolution process, while also ensuring that serious errors are not left unchecked. In simple terms, if a lower court makes a mistake, the higher court will only step in if the mistake violates a law, doesn’t follow previous court decisions, or is a clear error. The higher court will also only get involved if the mistake is so bad that it affects someone’s rights or makes the trial unfair. The higher court will also only step in if the benefits of getting involved are worth it. And if the higher court does get involved, it will only address the specific problem and won’t make new rules. We are proposing new rules for certiorari review that are more fair and transparent. We believe these rules will be better than the current one-size-fits-all approach. We will work on creating more specific tests for some common certiorari issues next time. We are also looking at how certiorari has evolved in the legal system over time. Certiorari is a legal term for a discretionary writ that a court can issue to review a judgment or order that is unauthorized or violates the law. It can be used when there is no other way to appeal the decision. Certiorari is not the proper way to challenge a denial of a motion to strike a claim for punitive damages. It can only be used if allowing the materials sought in discovery would cause irreparable, material injury. In Florida, there have been many cases where certiorari was used. Certiorari is a way for an appeals court to review a final decision of a lower court if it’s a really important case. Judge Chris Altenbernd and his staff attorney Jamie Marcario are involved in writing about this topic. This article was written for the Appellate Practice Section of the Florida Bar.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/certiorari-review-of-nonfinal-orders-does-one-size-really-fit-all-part-i/