The Essential Requirements of the Law When Are They Violated?

The legal firm hired by the company made a mistake and the client’s attorney wants the firm to take responsibility and fix the problem. The attorney also wants the firm to pay for any damages caused by the mistake. A writ of certiorari is a legal request for a higher court to review a lower court’s decision. To get this kind of review in Florida, a person has to show that there was a mistake in the lower court that can’t be fixed later, and that the mistake was really serious. This is called a “departure from the essential requirements of the law.” The Florida courts have been trying to figure out exactly what this means for a long time, and they’ve had some disagreements. The Florida Supreme Court has said that a legal mistake is not enough to get a review – it has to be a big mistake that causes a real problem. This mistake can come from past court decisions, rules of the court, laws, or even the constitution. So, just because a lower court got the law wrong, it doesn’t mean that the higher court will step in and fix it. The Florida Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “essential requirements of the law” in a recent case, emphasizing that certiorari is only available to correct serious errors that are not otherwise effectively subject to review. District courts have granted certiorari when a lower court fails to apply a controlling legal authority or applies the wrong law. This shows that certiorari is only granted when there is a serious legal mistake that needs to be corrected. If the lower court applied the right law, even if the result wasn’t right, the higher court won’t review it. This is because they only review if the lower court didn’t use the right law. If they can’t find any legal mistakes, they won’t review the case. District courts struggle to apply the correct law in some cases because it can be hard to figure out which legal authority applies. Sometimes, a court might think a previous decision controls a situation, but another judge might disagree. Even if the right legal authority is identified, interpreting the law incorrectly can still be a problem. Courts have to look at the actual words of a law, as well as the history of how it was made and similar laws, to make sure they’re understanding it correctly. For example, in one case, the court said the lower court and a hearing officer misunderstood a law about breathalyzer tests, and in another case, the court had to look at the history of a law to decide if prisoners could earn less time in jail. The district courts have noticed that circuit courts sometimes make mistakes when reviewing cases. In one case, the circuit court went beyond its scope and made a new decision instead of just checking if there was enough evidence to support the original decision. This was considered a departure from the law. The district courts have the power to fix errors in applying the law. If a lower court’s decision is based on the correct law but not enough evidence, it might still be considered a failure to follow the law. In the case Dresner v. City of Tallahassee, the Florida Supreme Court explained that common law certiorari can be used to review a lower court’s decision if there is a total lack of evidence to support it. Recent cases have quashed trial court orders based on a lack of competent substantial evidence. Additionally, common law certiorari decisions involving involuntary commitments have also turned on a lack of evidence to support the trial court’s findings and conclusions. Each of these decisions involved more than a mere lack of evidence and examined the applicable standards before turning to the evidence in the case. So, in Florida, the courts don’t usually review factual evidence in certiorari proceedings. For example, in a case called Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, the court said that certiorari can only be used to check if a trial court followed the rules for considering a claim for damages, not to look at the actual evidence in the case. And when it comes to second-tier certiorari review of administrative decisions, the court can only check if the lower court followed the rules, not if the evidence was good. So, in Florida, certiorari review is really limited and doesn’t usually include looking at the facts of the case. In Florida, there are different levels of review for legal cases. The standard for common law certiorari, which is a type of legal review, is quite strict. It requires more than just a legal error to be proven – there must be a serious injustice as a result of that error. This standard is taken very seriously by the courts. Overall, the requirements for common law certiorari are not easy to meet. This text contains legal citations and references to court cases. It also mentions attorneys from a law firm. The main points are that certiorari review in Florida involves specific legal standards, and certain court decisions have set the guidelines for how this review should be conducted. The authors are lawyers at a firm and they thank another lawyer for contributing to the article. This column is written by the Appellate Practice Section, with Raoul G. Cantero III as the chair and Kristin A. Norse as the editor. It aims to teach lawyers about their duty to serve the public, improve how the law is enforced, and make progress in the study of law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-essential-requirements-of-the-law-when-are-they-violated/