DELFINI, LLC
v.
CUBE 3585, LLC
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 court denied petitions for writ of certiorari, emphasizing the narrow scope of second-tier certiorari review. This type of review is limited to procedural due process and correct application of law, not general legal error.
The court held that second-tier certiorari review is narrow and does not permit correction of mere legal error. The review is limited to whether procedural due process was afforded and the correct law was applied.
[1] Second-tier certiorari review is narrowly scoped and limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law.
[2] Common-law certiorari is a discretionary exercise of jurisdiction and cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct mere legal error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“As a case travels up the judicial ladder, review should consistently become narrower, not broader”
Establishes the principle of narrowing review at higher appellate levels.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of a lower court's decision. The specific facts leading to the original…
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 Application Of Correct Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Given the narrow scope and standard of our review on second-tier certiorari, we deny these consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari. See Nader v. Florida Dept. of Hwy. Safety and Motor Veh., 87 So. 3d 712, 723 (Fla. 2012) (observing: “As a case travels up the judicial ladder, review should consistently become narrower, not broader” and holding: The standard of review for certiorari in the district court effectively eliminates the substantial competent evidence component. The inquiry is limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and whether the circuit court applied the correct law” (quoting Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530-31 (Fla. 1995)); Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1093 (Fla. 2010) (noting that the Florida Supreme Court “has definitively expressed that certiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error. This is necessary because, unlike an appeal, common-law certiorari is an entirely discretionary exercise of jurisdiction by the court and is not taken as a matter of right. A reviewing court on appeal may correct any and all errors below, whether jurisdictional, procedural, or substantive, and may modify, reverse, or remand a judgment.
In contrast, a district court cannot correct just any error that may have occurred below through a second-tier certiorari proceeding. This proceeding is considered original in the sense that the subject-matter of the action or proceeding before the court is not to be reinvestigated, tried, and determined upon the merits generally as upon appeal at law or writ of error.
Hence, a circuit court appellate decision made according to the forms of law and the rules prescribed for rendering it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as applied to facts, is not a departure from the essential requirements of law remediable by certiorari.
(Internal citations omitted)).
Petitions denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)
- Nader v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2012)