ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (DIVISION OF COURTS)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a chief judge's administrative order establishing de facto subject matter divisions in the Fourth Judicial Circuit's county court. The Court held that while chief judges have authority to assign judges to divisions, formal subject matter divisions must be established by local rule approved by the Court, not by administrative order alone.
The Court held that while Judicial Administrative Rule 2050(b)(3) and (4) grants the chief judge authority to assign judges to subject matter divisions, the establishment of formal subject matter divisions requires approval by local rule from the Florida Supreme Court under article V, section 20(c)(10) of the Florida Constitution. However, the Court allowed the administrative order to remain temporarily in effect pending submission of a proper local rule.
[1] A chief judge's authority to assign judges to divisions does not grant sole authority to establish subject matter divisions.
[2] Subject matter divisions within county courts must be established by local rules approved by the Supreme Court.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This rule does not, however, grant the sole authority to the chief judge to establish subject matter divisions.”
Establishes that while the chief judge has assignment authority under administrative rules, this does not include unilateral authority to create subject matter divisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Fourth Judicial Circuit had operated with de facto subject matter divisions since 1973 following implementation of the Florida Constitution's arti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Assignment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for consideration a petition of the county judges of the Fourth Judicial Circuit for review of an administrative order entered by the chief judge of that circuit on December 3, 1979. The issue is whether this order creates subject matter divisions within the county court.
We note that the Fourth Judicial Circuit has operated with de facto subject matter divisions since the implementation in 1973 of article V of the Florida Constitution rather than establish by local rule such subject matter divisions in accordance with article V, section 20(c)(10), Florida Constitution. Judicial Administrative Rule 2050(b)(3) and (4) gives the chief judge the authority to assign judges to subject matter or geographic divisions and the responsibility to develop a fair plan in the administrative operation of the courts that is both in the best interest of the public and provides for the full utilization of available facilities and judicial personnel. This rule does not, however, grant the sole authority to the chief judge to establish subject matter divisions. All circuits which operate with subject matter divisions should establish appropriate subject matter divisions by local rules approved by this Court in accordance with article V, section 20(c)(10), Florida Constitution.
To avoid disruption in the judicial administration of the county courts in Duval County, we will allow this order to temporarily remain in effect but direct that the judges of the Fourth Judicial Circuit consider and, if adopted, submit for this Court’s approval prior to March 1, 1980, a local rule establishing such subject matter divisions for both the circuit and county courts as they deem appropriate. Although section 20(c)(10) of article V only requires the establishment of subject matter divisions, i. e., criminal, civil, juvenile, probate, and traffic, it is also permissible to include geographic divisions in such local rule or accomplish such assignment by administrative order to the extent that it is appropriate for a particular circuit.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mann v. Chief Judge OF THE Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 696 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1997)…te its characterization as a division, we find that the drug court is more properly viewed as a specialized section or subdivision of the criminal division of the circuit court. See Administrative Order, Fourth Judicial Circuit (Division of Courts), 378 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla.1979) (“[Ejection 20(e)(10) of article V only requires the establishment of subject matter divisions, i.e., criminal, civil, juvenile, probate, and traffic-”). To require every specialized section of the major subject-matter divisions of a…
-
Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc. v. Pfeifler, 846 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2003)…he drug court was “more properly viewed as a specialized section or subdivision of the criminal division of the circuit court.” Id. at 1185. In Mann, we cited our previous opinion in Administrative Order Fourth Judicial Circuit (Division of Courts), 378 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla.1979), for the proposition that the Florida Constitution “only requires the establishment of subject matter divisions, i.e., criminal, civil, juvenile, probate, and traffic.” Accordingly, we concluded that the drug court division at issue…
-
Heaton v. State, 711 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…was more appropriately viewed as a specialized section or subdivision of the criminal division of the circuit court, despite its characterization as a division. Id. at 1185 (quoting Administrative Order, Fourth Judicial Circuit (Division of Courts), 378 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla.1979), for the proposition that “section 20(c)(10) of article V only requires the establishment of subject matter divisions, i.e., criminal, civil, juvenile, probate, and traffic _”). The supreme court reasoned, To require every specializ…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence