Second-tier Certiorari Standard of Review Under Florida Law: A Practitioner’s Guide

The key to winning an appeal is to present a persuasive argument to the court that it has the power to grant the relief you are asking for. It’s important to understand the standard of review, especially when challenging a decision of a lower court. Common law certiorari, which allows for a second tier review, has been a complex issue in Florida’s appellate courts. This writ has its origins in English common law and allows an appellate court to review a lower court’s decision to see if it exceeded its authority or made a mistake. The Florida Supreme Court first recognized common law certiorari in 1855, and it was meant to provide a limited review of the lower court’s proceedings, not a second chance for appeal. Certiorari is a limited review process used to challenge the decisions of administrative agencies or local zoning boards in Florida. The circuit court initially reviews the decision, and its decision can be further reviewed by a district court of appeal. The standard of review used by each court is important in determining the outcome of these reviews. The purpose of the limited review is to avoid multiple appeals and to ensure that court cases are resolved in a timely manner. When a circuit court reviews a decision from a local administrative agency, it must consider if the parties were treated fairly, if the decision follows the law, and if there is enough evidence to support it. The court cannot second-guess the agency’s findings based on the evidence. But when the circuit court reviews a decision from a county court, it can use a broader standard of review, like looking at the whole case again or deciding if the judge made a mistake. This allows the court to consider more types of errors than it can when reviewing an agency decision. If someone gets a bad decision from a higher court, they can ask a lower court to review it. The lower court doesn’t look at everything again, just whether the higher court followed the right rules and gave everyone a fair chance to speak. If the higher court did everything right, the lower court won’t change the decision. The district court only considers if the circuit court applied the right law when reviewing a case. They don’t look at whether the administrative agency followed the rules. If the circuit court didn’t apply the correct law, then the district court might grant a petition for certiorari. If a lower court applies the wrong law to a case, the higher court can grant a second-tier review to fix the mistake. However, just misapplying the correct law is not enough to grant this review. If there is no clear law to apply to a situation, the higher court cannot conclude that the lower court violated a clearly established principle of law. This can make it difficult for the law to evolve in lower court decisions. In a specific case, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that a lower court’s interpretation of a law, procedural rule, or constitutional provision can be grounds for a second-tier review. They granted one review because the lower court’s interpretation of the law didn’t align with the intent of the statute under review. Kaklamanos gives a wider way to show that the court didn’t use the right law. Now, lawyers can argue that the court’s interpretation of a law, rule, or part of the constitution is wrong. For example, they can say the court got it wrong because its understanding of a law goes against what the people who made the law wanted. Understanding the standard of review for second-tier certiorari is important for lawyers, as it can impact the outcome of a case. The standard of review is the way courts look at and consider the legal issues being challenged. Even though district courts will continue to analyze these second-tier proceedings within the narrow framework of certiorari itself, there are creative arguments to be made to obtain jurisdiction in certiorari proceedings. The standard of review can have a major impact on second-tier certiorari proceedings and often determines the outcome in each case. This is especially important when the issue being challenged arises from the interpretation of a law or constitutional provision. Cory W. Eichhorn is a lawyer who specializes in solving legal disputes and handling appeals. He works at a law firm in Fort Lauderdale and is a member of The Florida Bar. This column is written by the Appellate Practice Section and is focused on improving the justice system and legal practices.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/second-tier-certiorari-standard-of-review-under-florida-law-a-practitioners-guide/