local bar in Florida

2004See Fla. High Sch., Activities, Inc. v. Latimer, 750 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (excusable neglect rule “is not intended to relieve a party from its own tactical mistakes”); BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (excusable neglect warrants relief from judgment only “where it is the result of generally accepted practices and amenities among the local bar”); Smiles v. Young, 271 So.2d 798, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (“after making a decision not to request a copy [of a court-appointed physician’s report] and accepting the benefits of the choice, a plaintiff ou

1988See Smiles v. Young, 271 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) and Kash N'Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Garcia, 221 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

1990As long as it appears that a contribution was a normal incident in such a campaign, "[i]t does not tend to indicate any closer relation between the contributor and the recipient than would ordinarily exist between members of the same local bar." Frade v. Costa, 342 Mass. 5 , 171 N.E.2d 863, 865 (1961). [5] Accordingly, we quash that portion of the decision below which holds that the ground set forth by movants, opposing counsel's $500 contribution to the election campaign of the judge's spouse, is legally sufficient to mandate disqualification and we answer the certified question in the negati

1990As long as it appears that a contribution was a normal incident in such a campaign, "[i]t does not tend to indicate any closer relation between the contributor and the recipient than would ordinarily exist between members of the same local bar." Frade v. Costa, 342 Mass. 5 , 171 N.E.2d 863, 865 (1961). [5] Accordingly, we quash that portion of the decision below which holds that the ground set forth by movants, opposing counsel's $500 contribution to the election campaign of the judge's spouse, is legally sufficient to mandate disqualification and we answer the certified question in the negati

2017The Commission of Family Courts, created in 1990, has recommended “that the Supreme Court require each judicial circuit to submit to the court for approval a local rule establishing a family division in its circuit or a means to coordinate family law matters that affect one family if the circuit or part of the circuit is of such limited size that it is unable to administratively justify such a division.” In re: Report of the Commission on Family Courts, 588 So.2d 586 (Fla.1991).

2001Accordingly, we held that "each judicial circuit should develop a local rule establishing a family division in its circuit or a means to coordinate family law matters that affect one family if the circuit... is unable to administratively justify such a division." Id.

1988See Smiles v. Young, 271 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) and Kash N'Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Garcia, 221 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

1985Id.; Kash N'Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Garcia, 221 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

2009This court found “common law certiorari jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s order ... because the utilization of an improper process for the assignment of a judicial case causes ‘material injury ... that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ ” Jimenez, 967 So.2d at 1077 (internal citation omitted).

2007This certiorari petition presents the same issue we have addressed in Jimenez v. Rateni, 967 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

1979In State v. Darnell, 335 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) the court invalidated an administrative order of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit which circumscribed the power of the State to refile an information subsequent to entry of a nolle prosequi; and the same court in State v. Garrett, 310 So.2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) quashed a general order of the Chief Judge of the Nineteenth Circuit which authorized electronic court reporting because it was deemed a local rule requiring prior approval of the Supreme Court.

1976See State v. Garrett, 310 So.2d 751 (4th DCA Fla. 1975) (which question, certified by this Court, was later declared moot in 316 So.2d 262 , because, in the meantime the Supreme Court adopted a general statewide rule which encompassed the local rule.) It is our opinion that the Sections O and P, Section VIII of the Administrative Order of the 18th Circuit are inoperative and ineffective for the approval by the Supreme Court required in F.R.C.P. 1.020(b)(3) has not been obtained.

2019See Dougan v. Bradshaw, 198 So. 3d 878, 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“[A]n administrative order which attempts to amend a statute or rule by adding terms and conditions . . . is invalid.” (Alteration added) (citation omitted)).

2007See McAlevy v. State, 947 So.2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Melkonian v. Goldman, 647 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

2004See Fla. High Sch., Activities, Inc. v. Latimer, 750 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (excusable neglect rule “is not intended to relieve a party from its own tactical mistakes”); BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (excusable neglect warrants relief from judgment only “where it is the result of generally accepted practices and amenities among the local bar”); Smiles v. Young, 271 So.2d 798, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (“after making a decision not to request a copy [of a court-appointed physician’s report] and accepting the benefits of the choice, a plaintiff ou

2004See Fla. High Sch., Activities, Inc. v. Latimer, 750 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (excusable neglect rule “is not intended to relieve a party from its own tactical mistakes”); BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (excusable neglect warrants relief from judgment only “where it is the result of generally accepted practices and amenities among the local bar”); Smiles v. Young, 271 So.2d 798, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (“after making a decision not to request a copy [of a court-appointed physician’s report] and accepting the benefits of the choice, a plaintiff ou

2001See Family Courts II, 633 So.2d at 16 .

1992Finally, it is suggested that "[t]he attorneys practicing in this area of law are bitterly divided" over the significance of section 455.241, and the resulting "confusion among the trial judges and the local bar" is in need of immediate clarification. "[T]here is precedent for our early intervention where a departure from the essential requirements of law is found to exist and numerous similar cases, involving identical legal issues, may also be pending or forthcoming." Pearlstein v. Malunney, 500 So.2d 585, 587-8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), rev. denied 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987).

1991In re Estate of Warwick, 543 So.2d at 449 (emphasis added).

1989Such contributions do not automatically create an appearance of unfairness."); Frade v. Costa, 342 Mass. 5 , 171 N.E.2d 863 (1961) (So far as the contribution is a normal incident in a campaign for public office, "it does not tend to indicate any closer relationship between contributor and recipient than would ordinarily exist between members of the same local bar."); Rocha v. Ahmad, 662 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. Ct. App. 1963) ("A candidate for the bench who relies solely on contributions from nonlawyers must reconcile himself to staging a campaign on something less than a shoestring.

1985In our judgment, the term `proceeding,' which carries a somewhat more formal connotation, *78 suggests that Congress had a narrower end in view when enacting § 1623."); United States v. Tibbs, 600 F.2d 19, 21 (6th Cir.1979) ("[C]ommon experience indicates that every proceeding, including an ancillary proceeding, must incorporate certain notions of formality and convention."); see 1 Am.Jur.2d Actions § 3 (1962); 1 C.J.S.

1985Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 107 , 99 S.Ct. 2190, 2195 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743, 751 (1979) ("[T]he Government contends that any statements made under oath for submission to a court, whether given at an attorney's office or in a local bar and grill, fall within the ambit of § 1623... .

1985Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 107 , 99 S.Ct. 2190, 2195 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743, 751 (1979) ("[T]he Government contends that any statements made under oath for submission to a court, whether given at an attorney's office or in a local bar and grill, fall within the ambit of § 1623... .