Litigation Support and Consultation
Glass Law Office offers its appellate, litigation support, and consultation services to law firms of all sizes, corporations, and individuals at all stages of a case. Such services include case strategy at the pre-trial, trial, and post-trial stages; preserving the record on appeal; preparing dispositive motions; and research and analysis of key legal issues. Glass Law Office can assist in all areas of the law, including civil, criminal, family, and dependency, and in both state and federal courts.
Appeals
If a court issues an unfavorable judgment or order, the next step should be to evaluate whether an appeal is appropriate. As a former appellate law clerk at Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal and an appellate practitioner since 2009, Lisa Paige Glass, Esq. of Glass Law Office has the specialized knowledge and skill to guide you through the appellate process. Most appeals cannot be brought until the end of a case when a lower court issues a final order or final judgment. Nevertheless, there are avenues for obtaining immediate review of certain types of non-final orders when the situation is of an immediate or urgent nature. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 authorizes appellate courts to consider appeals of certain types of non-final orders on an interlocutory basis (i.e., before the case in the lower court has concluded) as well as certain types of final orders (including post-decretal orders, i.e., those entered after the final judgment, such as orders on motions for relief from judgment). If the type of order you need reviewed on a pressing basis does not fit into one of the categories enumerated in Rule 9.130, you may be able to seek relief through the filing of an original proceeding or extraordinary writ.
Original Proceedings and Extraordinary Writs
Writs are extraordinary remedies, governed by specific substantive and procedural standards, and are different from appeals. Unlike an appeal, in which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court, a writ is an original proceeding, meaning that the case is initiated in a court with the power to hear it for the first time. Although certain types of extraordinary writs (such as writ of certiorari) can be used to ask a higher court to quash the decision of a lower court, such proceedings are original proceedings and are not appeals. Extraordinary writs cannot be used to bypass Rule 9.130, which governs appeals from nonfinal orders. Nor can extraordinary writs be used to challenge a decision of an appellate court rendered without opinion (i.e., per curiam affirmed or per curiam denied), which is not generally reviewable by the supreme court. Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2002). If initiated in the circuit court, original and extraordinary writ proceedings are governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630. If initiated in the district courts of appeal, the supreme court, or the circuit court in its appellate capacity, original and extraordinary writ proceedings are governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100. In original and extraordinary writ proceedings governed by Rule 9.100, no record is transmitted; instead, the petitioner relies on an Appendix under Rule 9.220.
A petition for a Writ of Certiorari attacks a non-final order and must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order. A court can quash the non-final order if the petitioner demonstrates that the order: (1) departs from the essential requirements of law; (2) causes irreparable injury; and (3) the injury cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. An example of the type of dispute that is often reviewed on certiorari is pretrial orders compelling discovery in civil cases (because irreparable harm results from release of privileged documents). The petition must be served on both the opposing party/counsel and on the judicial officer who entered the order. Denial of a petition for writ of certiorari is not res judicata—it is not a determination of the merits of the case. Thus, if a petition for writ of certiorari is denied, the petitioner can still raise this issue on appeal at the conclusion of the trial court case.
A petition for a Writ of Mandamus is used to enforce an established legal right by compelling a public officer or agency to perform a duty required by law. A petition for writ of mandamus may also be used against an officer or director of a private corporation and a trustee common, guardian, or personal representative of an estate, as long as the official is charged by law with performing the duties sought to be compelled. Additionally, a petition for writ of mandamus may be used to test the correctness of an order determining that a trial court lacks jurisdiction. The legal duty sought to be compelled must be ministerial, not discretionary. The party seeking the writ must have a clear legal right to compel performance of the act. Mandamus is not appropriate if there is another adequate remedy, and mandamus cannot be used to enforce private rights. Mandamus can only compel a ruling—but not a particular ruling. There is no time limit to filing a petition for writ of mandamus, but any delay is subject to the equitable doctrine of laches. The trial judge cannot be named as a respondent in the caption, but can be named in the body of the petition.
A petition for Writ of Prohibition is used to prevent a lower tribunal from the improper exercise of judicial power. As a general rule, the remedy of prohibition is preventive and not corrective. Prohibition cannot be used if there is another available remedy. Prohibition can be used to restrain the improper exercise of jurisdiction. Prohibition can also be used to review the denial of a motion to disqualify a trial judge. Prohibition is not subject to a jurisdictional time limit, but is subject to the equitable doctrine of laches. If the appellate court issues an order to show cause in response to a petition for writ of prohibition, the order to show cause immediately stays all further proceedings in the lower court. Denial of a petition for writ of prohibition without opinion is not res judicata.
A petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is used to challenge the legality of the detention or restraint of a person and to obtain the person’s prompt release. The detained party is the petitioner. The person having immediate custody and the ability to physically produce the petitioner is the respondent. An application for the writ of habeas corpus may be made by both the detainee or another person in the interest of the person illegally detained: “The application for the writ may be made by an agent or friend, wife, husband, or the person detained himself, or by parent for his child, guardian for his ward, or special bail for his principal.” State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 152 So. 207, 209 (Fla. 1933). Although usually associated with criminal law, habeas corpus is actually an independent civil proceeding that is available in both civil and criminal cases. Habeas corpus can also be used in connection with child custody proceedings. Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1971).Moreover, habeas corpus can be used in dependency and termination of parental rights proceedings to afford a parent a belated appeal where the failure to file a timely appeal cannot be ascribed to the parent. In the Interest of E.H., 609 So. 2d 1289, 1290-91 (Fla. 1992).
A petition for Writ of Quo Warranto is a civil remedy employed to determine a person’s right to hold public office or challenge a public officer’s attempt to exercise some right or privilege that derives from the state or to take certain actions in an official capacity. Quo warranto is not available when there is an adequate remedy available by statute. There is no time limit in which to petition for a writ of quo warranto.
The All Writs provisions of the Florida Constitution provide the supreme court, district courts of appeal, and circuit courts with the general power to issue all writs necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction. Art. V, §§ 3(b)(7), 4(b)(3), & 5(b), Fla. Const. Also known as a Constitutional Writ, the all writs provision is used to preserve the power of the court to fully and effectively provide relief and decide cases that have been, or will be, presented to the court on independent jurisdictional grounds. It is most commonly used to obtain a stay of lower court proceedings when the typical route through the appellate rules cannot be used.
Although not technically considered a writ, appellate courts have original jurisdiction under Rule 9.100(d) to review Orders Excluding or Granting Access to Press or Public as to any judicial proceeding, any part of a judicial proceeding, or any records of the judicial branch. Examples of orders reviewed under this Rule include orders sealing court files, orders restricting access to pretrial discovery, gag orders, and orders excluding the press and public from attendance at court hearings. Because of the time sensitive nature of this type of controversy, a petition to review such an order must be filed as soon as practicable and no later than 30 days following rendition of the order. Even if filed within the jurisdictional timeframe, such petitions are subject to mootness challenges. Review of these orders is expedited, and the appellate court may grant a stay on its own motion or on the motion of a party under Rule 9.110(d)(2). The standard of review is the same as that in certiorari proceedings: i.e., a violation of procedural due process or a departure from the essential requirements of law that cannot be corrected on plenary appeal. Miami Herald Media Co. v. State, 218 So. 3d 460, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing, inter alia, Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, 520 So. 2d 32, 33 (Fla. 1988)).