This article discusses the Florida Supreme Court’s power to review decisions of lower courts when there is a conflict in the law. It reminds lawyers that the Supreme Court can review certain types of cases, even if they don’t have a written opinion. It also suggests that the Supreme Court should reconsider its current approach to these cases. The article explains that the Supreme Court’s power to review cases was limited in 1980, when the state’s constitution was amended. Overall, the article argues that the Supreme Court should reevaluate its approach to conflicts in the law. In the past, the Florida Supreme Court could take on cases without a clear conflict, leading to a backlog of cases. In 1980, a change to the state constitution limited the court’s ability to take on cases without a clear conflict, helping to reduce the backlog. The Florida Supreme Court decided in Jenkins v. State that they cannot review certain court decisions without a written explanation, even if there’s a disagreement in an accompanying opinion. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when a decision is based on a case that is currently being reviewed or has been overturned by the Florida Supreme Court. Additionally, the court can review a decision if it cites a different district court decision that contradicts the one it’s based on, as seen in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Lawrence. The court in Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1983), exercised conflict jurisdiction under a certain law because the district court’s decision seemed to conflict with another court’s decision. This decision was repeated in later cases, but some argue against it. They say that just because one court decision conflicts with another doesn’t mean the original decision also conflicts. They think that the conflict should be more direct and obvious before the court can take jurisdiction. The purpose of the 1980 amendment was to change the rules for reviewing court decisions. The amendment required written opinions to be the basis for review, and it aimed to eliminate jurisdiction over certain types of court decisions. Some argue that by reviewing certain types of decisions, the court is going against the purpose of the amendment. This argument is supported by the idea that the conflict in decisions must be clearly stated, and that a decision without a clear explanation doesn’t count as a conflict. In simple terms, the Supreme Court in Florida has the power to review cases where different appeals courts have made conflicting decisions. There are two ways this can happen: when the conflict is clearly stated in the appeals court decision, or when the Supreme Court decides to review a case that has been certified as being in conflict with another appeals court decision. The issue is whether the Supreme Court should have the power to review cases based on conflicting signals in the appeals court decision, or only when the conflict has been officially certified. In order for a court to have jurisdiction over a case with conflicting decisions, the conflict must be officially certified by the district court. This means the court must specifically state that there is a conflict in order for the higher court to consider the case. Additionally, a conflict can be certified through a PCA, even if there is not an actual conflict. However, if the higher court starts considering cases with conflicting decisions that are not officially certified, it may make the certification requirement unnecessary and reduce its importance. Ultimately, the formal requirements for certifying a conflict should be respected, even if they may seem unnecessary. In simple terms, the 1980 amendment to the Florida Constitution gave the Supreme Court the power to resolve conflicts between different district courts. However, there is some debate over whether the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction over decisions that just signal conflicting opinions, rather than officially certify them. This debate has led to uncertainty and confusion in the legal system. Overall, the Supreme Court has tried to limit its jurisdiction over these types of cases in order to follow the rules of the 1980 amendment and respect the will of the people. But there are still ongoing discussions about how to handle conflicting opinions in the court system. In short, this article talks about how the Florida court has been successful in handling conflicts in jurisdiction, but there’s one specific area where they might want to reconsider their authority. They have sometimes made decisions about cases that show different legal opinions, but they haven’t really explained why they have the right to do that. The article says that there are good arguments for and against their authority in these cases. It suggests that the court should either explain their decisions better in the future, or maybe even change their approach. For now, lawyers should remember that there’s a narrow exception to the court’s authority in these types of cases. These are court cases from Florida, and the numbers like “385 So. 2d 1371” and “827 So. 2d 974” are references to where the cases were published. They’re like a code to find the cases in a legal library. Some of these cases involve things like the state government, banks, and insurance companies. There are also some opinions from judges and legal scholars about how these cases were handled. These are references to different legal cases and laws in Florida. They are often used to show how one court decision conflicts with another. The Florida Supreme Court can step in to review these conflicts and make a final decision. This is an important part of how the legal system works in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court has the power to review cases that have conflicting rulings from lower courts. This is because conflicting rulings can create confusion in the law, which the Supreme Court can resolve. The court has the discretion to decide which cases to review, and not all conflicting cases are considered important enough to warrant review. The way the court interprets and applies this power can affect how justice is served in Florida. The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure allow lawyers to ask the court for a written opinion or certification for further review, but there’s no explicit way to ask the court to consider different legal opinions. Andrew L. Adler is a lawyer who handles appeals for the federal public defender’s office in Southern Florida.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/revisiting-the-florida-supreme-courts-conflict-jurisdiction-to-review-per-curiam-affirmances-signaling-contrary-authority/
Leave a Reply