Elimination of Florida Terms of Court and its Effect on Appellate Mandates

A “term of court” is a specific time period on the court’s calendar for handling legal matters. It used to have a strict meaning, but Florida has changed the law to make it more flexible for modern courts. In 1868, Florida divided the state into seven judicial circuits, assigning one judge to each. Each judge had to hold two court terms in each county in their circuit every year. If a judge missed the first day of court, they had to explain why and were fined $100. The judges had to travel from county to county to conduct court business. The Supreme Court also had to hold three terms each year. In 1957, Florida’s intermediary appellate courts were created and the terms of court for the Supreme Court and district courts of appeal were established. Presently, these terms are considered old-fashioned, but are still important for designating terms of local grand juries and limiting the recall of appellate mandates. At the start of each court term, all previous court decisions become final. The court has the power to change its decisions during the same term. There’s a problem with this rule because it gives different deadlines for recalling decisions. To fix this, a new law will give the courts the power to decide their own terms, instead of the legislature deciding for them. A new law has been passed that allows appellate courts to change their own opinions and orders if they don’t follow the law or seem unfair. The law also says that the courts can take back their decisions within 120 days of making them. This could help make the appeals process fairer and give the courts more time to fix any mistakes. It might be a good idea for the Supreme Court to get rid of the old rules and follow this new law instead. This document is an analysis of a bill, but it’s not the official opinion of the person who sponsored the bill or the House of Representatives. Florida courts consider staff analyses to be important in understanding what the legislature wants, but they’re not the only thing that matters. The bill is about changing the rules for when courts are open, and it’s based on an old law from 1868. The bill says that courts have to be open at certain times, but some people think that this is outdated. The bill also talks about how appeals courts can tell lower courts what to do. Some court cases from the past also help explain why this bill is important. The bill is still being talked about by the legislature, and it’s not clear if it will become a real law. Scott S. Amitrano is a lawyer who works for a judge in Florida. He got his law degree from Rutgers School of Law-Camden in 2011. He can practice law in Florida, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. This column is written on behalf of the Appellate Practice Section. The section’s goal is to teach its members about duty and serving the public, improving justice administration, and advancing the science of law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/elimination-of-florida-terms-of-court-and-its-effect-on-appellate-mandates/