simple legal error in Florida

2025Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003) (“[T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law . . . is something more than a simple legal error.

2024Thus, the remaining question is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, which "is something more than a simple legal error." See Allstate Ins. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000)).

2019"There must be a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice." Id. (citing Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 , 95–96 (Fla. 1983)).

2012This departure is more than a simple legal error; “[tjhere must be a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 364 (citing Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95-96 (Fla.1983)).

2024Thus, the remaining question is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, which "is something more than a simple legal error." See Allstate Ins. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000)).

2016Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000) (“[T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error”).

2022The departure from the essential requirements of law necessary for granting second-tier certiorari “is something more than a simple legal error,” it must involve the violation of “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id.

2022The departure from the essential requirements of law necessary for granting second tier certiorari “is something more than a simple legal error”: it must involve the violation of “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id.

2019A departure from the essential requirements of the law "is something more than a simple legal error." See Fassy, 884 So. 2d at 363–64.

2017“A departure from the essential requirements of the law ... is something more than a simple legal error.” Fassy v. Crowley, 884 So.2d 359, 363-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

2018The Florida Supreme Court has strongly cautioned district courts against expanding second-tier certiorari jurisdiction. “[A]ppellate courts must exercise caution not to expand certiorari jurisdiction to review the correctness of the circuit court’s decision.” Nader v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehs., 87 So. 3d 712, 723 (Fla. 2012); see also Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 526 (Fla. 1995). “[T]he departure from the essential requirements of law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.” Allstate Ins.

2016However, the Fifth District held that the circuit court was required to remand the case back to DHSMV for another administrative hearing, and “that the circuit court misapplied the law when it directed DHSMV to set aside the suspension and reinstate Futch’s driver’s license.” Id. at 916 . “[A]ppellate courts must exercise caution not to expand certiorari jurisdiction to review the correctness of the circuit court’s decision.” Nader v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehs., 87 So.3d 712, 723 (Fla.2012); see also Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 526 (Fla.1995). “[T]he departure fr

2017As an initial matter, we observe that "[c]ertiorari review is proper when it is alleged that the circuit court's interpretation of a statute violates clearly established law or when it fails to follow the dictates of a statute, and the error is sufficiently egregious as to result in a miscarriage of justice." In re Asbestos Litig., 933 So. 2d 613, 616 (Fla. -3- 3d DCA 2006); cf. Fassy v. Crowley, 884 So. 2d 359, 363-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("A departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.

2017As an initial matter, we observe that “[cjertiorari review is proper when it is alleged that the circuit court’s interpretation of a statute violates clearly established law or when it fails to follow the dictates of a statute, and the error is sufficiently egregious as to result in a miscarriage of justice.” In re Asbestos Litig., 933 So.2d 613, 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); cf. Fassy v. Crowley, 884 So.2d 359, 363-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certio-rari is something more than a simple legal error.

2025Ctr., 62 So. 3d at 1092 .

2016Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1092 (Fla.2010) (“The departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for granting a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.”).

2025Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Woodford, 270 So. 3d 481, 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 4 2019) (citations omitted).

2019Thus, a "departure from the essential requirements of law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error." Futch v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 189 So. 3d 131, 132 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d at 889 ).

2018But we grant certiorari only “when a lower court has departed from the essential requirements of the law,” Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011), and that means there must be “something more than a simple legal error.” Allstate Ins.

2016See Barker v. Barker, 909 So.2d 333, 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“A departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.

2015See id. “[T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.” Allstate Ins.

2010There must be a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Housing Auth. of Tampa v. Burton, 874 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins.

2010Further, the "failure to apply the correct law, which is synonymous with departure from the essential requirements of the law, is something more than a simple legal error." State v. Belvin, 986 So.2d 516, 525 (Fla.2008) (citation omitted).

2010Further, the “failure to apply the correct law, which is synonymous with departure from the essential requirements of the law, is something more than a simple legal error.” State v. Belvin, 986 So.2d 516, 525 (Fla.2008) (citation omitted).

2008The Florida Supreme Court quoted from Judge Altenbernd's opinion in Stilson v. Allstate Insurance Co., 692 So.2d 979, 982-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997): Existing case law establishes that the departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error . . .

2006Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003) (noting that "the departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error"); State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 254 (Fla. 1988) (concluding that although a pretrial ruling was in error, "we cannot say that the ruling was a departure from the essential requirements of law").

2003Kash N' Karry Food Stores, Inc. v. Smart, 814 So.2d 530, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). [T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.

2003Kash N' Karry Food Stores, Inc. v. Smart, 814 So.2d 530, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). [T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error.