Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 34.017 (2025)

Certification of questions to district court of appeal.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

34.017 Certification of questions to district court of appeal.—

(1) A county court may certify a question to the district court of appeal in a final judgment that is appealable to the circuit court if the question may have statewide application, and:

(a) Is of great public importance; or

(b) Will affect the uniform administration of justice.

(2) In the final judgment, the trial court shall:

(a) Make findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(b) State concisely the question to be certified.

(3) The decision to certify the question to the district court of appeal is within the sole discretion of the county court.

(4) The district court of appeal has absolute discretion as to whether to answer a question certified by the county court.

(a) If the district court agrees to answer the certified question, it shall decide all appealable issues that have been raised from the final judgment.

(b) If the district court declines to answer the certified question, the case shall be transferred to the circuit court which has appellate jurisdiction.

History.—s. 3, ch. 84-303; s. 6, ch. 2020-61.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cc Chiropractic, LLC, a/a/o Islande Napoleon, 245 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cc Chiropractic, LLC, a/a/o Islande Napoleon, 245 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). · cites it 5× “To the extent that existing law provides a way for us to review county court decisions, it exists in section 34.017, Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.”

Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida, 215 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017). · cites it 4× “Section 34.017(1), Florida Statutes (2012), permits a county court to certify questions of great public importance to the district court of appeal in a final judgment if the question “may have statewide application.”

Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). · cites it 3× “Thus, the concept of a question of great public importance in section 34.017 is somewhat broader than in the constitution.”

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2001). · cites it 2× “In fact, the majority and concurring opinions interpret the no-fault statutes in a manner that simply provides a thirty-day grace period for payment of benefits that even other forms of health and disability insurance are not afforded.”

Kingsway Amigo Ins. Co. v. Ocean Health, Inc., 63 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). · cites it 2× “The county court certified the following question as an issue of great public importance pursuant to section 34.017, Florida Statutes (2010): MAY A PIP INSURER NEVERTHELESS ELECT TO USE THE MEDICARE PART B FEE SCHEDULES SET FORTH IN FLA.”

Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 916 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 34.017(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). Because the issues in this appeal deal solely with the interpretation of the fee agreement between Moore and Ms.”

State Ex Rel. City of Aventura v. Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “; § 34.017(1) & (2), Fla. Stat. (2015). ANALYSIS A.”

City of Hollywood, a political subdivision of the State of Florida v. Eric Arem, 154 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · cites it 2× “The county court certified the following questions of great public importance pursuant to section 34.017, Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.”

City of Oldsmar v. Trinh, 210 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “erning potential red light camera violations before sending that data to the appropriate traffic enforcement authority for a probable cause determination, The City of Oldsmar (the City) and the Attorney General challenge the county court’s order granting Tammy Vo Trinh’s motion…”

Geico Gen. Ins. v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 90 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). · cites it 2× “s one of law: did the insurer correctly apply the PIP law, as amended, in limiting reimbursement to the appellee based on the amendment and fee schedules, or was the insurer obligated to reimburse the amount claimed by the MRI provider to be “reasonable” without reference to the…”

Everard v. State, 559 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). · cites it 2× “Section 34.017, Florida Statutes (1987), provides: (1)A county court is permitted to certify a question to the district court of appeal in a final judgment if the question may have statewide application, and: (a) Is of great public importance; or (b) Will affect the uniform…”

State v. Parsons, 549 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). · cites it 2× “Based on the following order, which ably and comprehensively discusses and resolves the question involved, the Dade County Court has certified to us, under section 34.017, Florida Statutes (1987) and Fla.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— 34.017(1) — 8 cases

Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida, 215 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017). “Section 34.017(1), Florida Statutes (2012), permits a county court to certify questions of great public importance to the district court of appeal in a final judgment if the question “may have statewide application.”

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2001). “In fact, the majority and concurring opinions interpret the no-fault statutes in a manner that simply provides a thirty-day grace period for payment of benefits that even other forms of health and disability insurance are not afforded.”

State Ex Rel. City of Aventura v. Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “; § 34.017(1) & (2), Fla. Stat. (2015). ANALYSIS A.”

Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). “Thus, the concept of a question of great public importance in section 34.017 is somewhat broader than in the constitution.”

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (Fla. 2023).

— 34.017(1)(a) — 1 case

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cc Chiropractic, LLC, a/a/o Islande Napoleon, 245 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “To the extent that existing law provides a way for us to review county court decisions, it exists in section 34.017, Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.”

— 34.017(3) — 2 cases

Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Open MRI, LLC, 208 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Curry v. State, 522 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

— 34.017(4)(a) — 1 case

Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 916 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “§ 34.017(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). Because the issues in this appeal deal solely with the interpretation of the fee agreement between Moore and Ms.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.