Florida Statute 59 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 59
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 59

APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

59.04 Appeal from order granting new trial.

59.041 Harmless error; effect.

59.06 Matters reviewable on appeal.

59.081 Time for invoking appellate jurisdiction of any court.

59.13 Supersedeas on petition for certiorari.

59.15 Proceedings in pais; authentication.

59.29 Amendment of appellate proceedings.

59.33 Quashing appeals; power of appellate court.

59.35 Judgment; power of appellate court to direct a new trial upon one or more issues.

59.45 Misconception of remedy; Supreme Court.

59.46 Attorney’s fees.

59.04 Appeal from order granting new trial.—Upon the entry of an order granting a new trial, the party aggrieved may prosecute an appeal to the proper appellate court without waiting for final judgment. If the judgment is reversed, the appellate court may direct that final judgment be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict unless a motion in arrest of judgment or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict be made and prevail.

History.—RS 1267; GS 1695; RGS 2905; CGL 4615; s. 4, ch. 22854, 1945; s. 1, ch. 71-316.

59.041 Harmless error; effect.—No judgment shall be set aside or reversed, or new trial granted by any court of the state in any cause, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the improper admission or rejection of evidence or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed.

History.—s. 1, ch. 6223, 1911; RGS 2812; CGL 4499; s. 14, ch. 67-254.

Note.—Former s. 54.23.

59.06 Matters reviewable on appeal.—

(1) WHAT MAY BE ASSIGNED AS ERROR.—All judgments and orders made in any action wherein the trial court:

(a) May allow or refuse to allow any motion:

1. For a new trial or rehearing,

2. For leave to amend pleadings,

3. For leave to file new or additional pleadings,

4. To amend the record, or

5. For continuance of the action; or

(b) Shall sustain or overrule any motion to dismiss the action

may be assigned as error upon any appeal from the final judgment or order in the action. The appellate court shall hear and determine the matter so assigned under like rules as in other actions.

(2) EFFECT OF PLEADING OVER OR AMENDING.—Pleading over or amending pleadings after order upon motion to dismiss shall not waive the right to have the judgment or order reviewed.

History.—s. 1, ch. 521, 1853; s. 1, ch. 3430, 1883; RS 1265; GS 1693; RGS 2903; CGL 4608; s. 6, ch. 22854, 1945; s. 2, ch. 71-316.

59.081 Time for invoking appellate jurisdiction of any court.—

(1) The time within which and the method by which the jurisdiction of any court in this state possessed of power to review the action of any other court, commission, officer or bureau may be invoked by appeal, certiorari, petition for review or other process by whatever name designated, and the manner of computing such time shall be prescribed by rule of the Supreme Court.

(2) Failure to invoke the jurisdiction of any such court within the time prescribed by such rules shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 67-175; ss. 29, 30, ch. 69-52; s. 16, ch. 71-355.

59.13 Supersedeas on petition for certiorari.—When it appears to the trial court that a petition for certiorari has been or is about to be applied for in an appellate court, the trial court may grant a supersedeas upon petitioner giving a good and sufficient bond, conditioned that the petition shall be duly presented to the appellate court within the time prescribed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and to pay all costs, damages, and expenses occasioned by reason of the stay of proceedings with such other and further conditions as may be fixed by the trial court in the event the order or judgment for which a review is sought is not quashed, modified or reversed.

History.—ss. 1, 7, Feb. 10, 1832; Feb. 17, 1833; Feb. 12, 1836; ss. 3, 4, ch. 521, 1852; RS 1272, 1458; s. 1, ch. 4917, 1901; GS 1701, 1909; RGS 2911, 3170; CGL 4621, 4962; s. 13, ch. 22854, 1945; ss. 3, 5, ch. 71-316.

Note.—Consolidation with former ss. 67.04 and 67.05.

59.15 Proceedings in pais; authentication.—Proceedings in pais, not stenographically reported, may be authenticated by recitals in orders, judgments, or decrees, of the trial court, or of the judge thereof, or by a stipulation by the interested parties.

History.—s. 68, Nov. 23, 1828; s. 1, ch. 138, 1848; RS 1268; GS 1696; s. 10, ch. 7838, 1919; RGS 2906; CGL 4616; s. 15, ch. 22854, 1945; s. 5, ch. 71-316.

59.29 Amendment of appellate proceedings.—The appellate court may, at any time, in the furtherance of justice, upon such terms as may be just, permit appellate proceedings to be amended.

History.—s. 2, ch. 11890, 1927; CGL 4636; s. 29, ch. 22854, 1945.

59.33 Quashing appeals; power of appellate court.—Appellate courts shall have power to quash appeals in all cases in which appeals do not lie, or where they are taken against good faith or merely for delay, and may decree in such case damages against the appellant not exceeding 10 percent.

History.—s. 13, Feb. 10, 1832; s. 50, ch. 1096, 1861; RS 1279; GS 1709; s. 13, ch. 5898, 1909; RGS 2920; CGL 4639; s. 33, ch. 22854, 1945.

59.35 Judgment; power of appellate court to direct a new trial upon one or more issues.—An appellate court may, in reversing a judgment of a lower court brought before it for review by appeal, by the order of reversal, if the error for which reversal is sought is such as to require a new trial, direct that a new trial be had on all the issues shown by the record or upon a part of such issues only. When a reversal is had, with direction for new trial on a part of the issues, all other issues shall be deemed settled conclusively in favor of the appellee.

History.—s. 1, ch. 6467, 1913; RGS 2921; CGL 4640; s. 35, ch. 22854, 1945.

59.45 Misconception of remedy; Supreme Court.—If an appeal be improvidently taken where the remedy might have been more properly sought by certiorari, this alone shall not be a ground for dismissal; but the notice of appeal and the record thereon shall be regarded and acted on as a petition for certiorari duly presented to the Supreme Court.

History.—s. 1, ch. 23826, 1947.

59.46 Attorney’s fees.—In the absence of an expressed contrary intent, any provision of a statute or of a contract entered into after October 1, 1977, providing for the payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party shall be construed to include the payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on appeal.

History.—s. 1, ch. 73-84; s. 1, ch. 77-76; s. 1, ch. 83-214.

F.S. 59 on Google Scholar

F.S. 59 on Casetext

Amendments to 59

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 59

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S372.59 - CONSERVATION-LICENSE-STAMP - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 6753 - M: S

S372.59 - CONSERVATION-LICENSE-STAMP - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 6754 - M: F

S817.59 - FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENT - INFORMATION REGARDING FINANCIAL CONDITION - M: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 59

Total Results: 20

David Montero v. the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-15

Snippet: direct appeal is filed.”) (quoting Saavedra v. State, 59 So. 3d 191,192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)). In the

Roderick Owens v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-15

Snippet: the two-year deadline. See Spera, 971 So. 2d at 758–59. I disagree that Spera somehow supported the contention

Michael Crist v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-10

Snippet: license upon certain occurrences. See, e.g., § 322.059, Fla. Stat. (surrender of license required for delinquent

Emily Mize English v. Port St. Lucie Police Department

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-08

Snippet: cannot be reversed if an error is harmless. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2023). An error is harmless if “there

Raquel Quesada v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-02

Snippet: 3D23-1352 Lower Tribunal No. 21-59 ________________

Francisco Reyna-Duran v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-20

Snippet: and would have insisted on going to trial.” Id. at 59. The Florida Supreme Court provided later

Elizabeth Clark v. Kermit Hahn and Evelyn Hahn

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-19

Snippet: Co., 330 So. 3d at 1002 (quoting Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092, 1095 (Fla. 2011)). If an error is shown

Robert Craft v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-19

Snippet: (Fla. 2016) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)). In examining Craft’s first claim,

Henry Tien v. Tax Collector

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-18

Snippet: power, privilege, or right . . . .”); May v. Holley, 59 So. 2d 636, 639 (Fla. 1952) (setting forth the requirements

Panaro v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-13

Snippet: of impairment. Cf. State v. Clements, 968 So. 2d 59, 59–61 5 (Fla

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., and University of Florida Board of Trustees

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-11

Snippet: Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 59 U.S. 272, 284 (1855) (explaining that the federal

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., and University of Florida Board of Trustees

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-11

Snippet: Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 59 U.S. 272, 284 (1855) (explaining that the federal

Mark H. Schofield v. Monroe County, Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-04

Snippet: absent an abuse of discretion.’” Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092, 1095 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Blanco v

Jones v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-04

Snippet: entry of corrected revocation order); Enno v. State, 59 So. 3d 149, 149–50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant

J.B. Harris, P.A. v. Virage Capital Management LP

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-27

Snippet: and reversed. Sugarman v. Street, 198 So. 2d 57, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). We explained: The fact

Pro Choice Remediation Inc. A/A/O St. James AME Church of Trustee v. Old Dominion Insurance Company

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-27

Snippet: based on fraud.” Young v. Curgil, 358 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). And the trial court found that

Carlos De La Melena v. Joanna Patricia Montezuma Panez

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-22

Snippet: returned to Peru. See Hammond v. State, 34 So. 3d 58, 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Claims for which an appellant

Erica McDonald, as Parent and Natural Guardian of J.M., a Minor v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, and Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. D/B/A Tampa General Hospital; And University of South Florida Board of Trustees

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-20

Snippet: Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 59 U.S. 272, 284 (1855) (explaining that the federal

Elizabeth Estevill v. Tomas Estevill

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-20

Snippet: equitable title. See also In re Trujillo, 626 B.R. 59 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2019). “‘Equitable title’ has

Julio Rocael Aguilar Lopez v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-13

Snippet: wrongful act. Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 358-59 (2008); see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 n.6 (“If