Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Custer Medical Center v. United Automobile Insurance Co.green2 sentences2023Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983). “[C]ertiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error.” Custer, 62 So. 3d at 1093 . 2023Inc. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1092-93 (Fla. 2010) (noting that “the district courts should consider the nature of the error and grant a petition for writ of certiorari ‘only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice;’” acknowledging that “this Court has definitively expressed that certiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error;” and holding that “a circuit court appellate decision made according to the forms of law and the rules prescribed for rendering it, although it may be erro | 6 | 11 |
Combs v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983). “[C]ertiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error.” Custer, 62 So. 3d at 1093 . 2023Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983). “[C]ertiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error.” Custer, 62 So. 3d at 1093 . | 4 | 4 |
Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co.green2 sentences2017Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003); Ivey, 774 So.2d at 682, 683 (stating that a court’s misapplication of the correct law or “erroneous interpretation of [a] law” is not a departure from the essential requirements of the law). 2015Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003); Ivey, 774 So.2d at 682, 683 (stating that a court’s misapplication of the correct law or “erroneous interpretation of [a] law” is not a departure from the essential requirements of the law). | 4 | 4 |
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanosgreen2 sentences2017Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003); Ivey, 774 So.2d at 682, 683 (stating that a court’s misapplication of the correct law or “erroneous interpretation of [a] law” is not a departure from the essential requirements of the law). 2015Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003); Ivey, 774 So.2d at 682, 683 (stating that a court’s misapplication of the correct law or “erroneous interpretation of [a] law” is not a departure from the essential requirements of the law). | 3 | 3 |
Sutton v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Because a second-tier certiorari proceeding “cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error,” the Florida Supreme Court has cautioned that “a district court should exercise' its discretion to grant review only when the lower tribunal has violated a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Custer, 62 So.Sd at 1092-93; accord Sutton v. State, 975 So.2d 1073, 1081 (Fla. 2008) (stating that “[a] departure from the essential requirements of the law is not mere legal error, but instead, involves a ‘gross miscarriage of justice 2015See id. at 1093 (“[A] circuit court appellate decision made according to the forms of law and the rules prescribed for rendering it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as applied to facts, is not a departure from the essential requirements of law remediable by certiorari.”); Sutton v. State, 975 So.2d 1073, 1081 (Fla.2008) (“Due to its discretionary nature, a district court of appeal may refuse to grant certio-rari relief even if there is legal error which could be argued to be a departure from the essential requirements of law.”); Ivey v. Allstate Ins. | 2 | 2 |
City of Center Hill v. McBrydegreen1 sentence2017Hill, 952 So. 2d at 601 (stating that “[s]econd-tier certiorari review is not a matter of right”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CC CHIROPRACTIC, LLC, a/a/o ISLANDE NAPOLEON
green
1 sentence2019See Custer, 62 So. 3d at 1093 (emphasizing that “certiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error”); State Farm, 245 So. 3d at 757 n.2 (noting “[a] denial of discretionary second-tier certiorari review should not be construed to mean that we approve of the underlying decisions”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |