IN RE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES
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 amended Rule 2.1a(4)(i) of the Florida Appellate Rules to clarify provisions regarding the substitution of judges in juvenile courts. The amendment ensures that existing statutes authorizing the substitution of county and circuit judges for juvenile court judges remain unaffected.
Yes, the rule should be amended to explicitly state that it does not affect statutory provisions for substituting county and circuit judges in juvenile court matters.
“Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect any provision of the statutes in this state in effect on July 1, 1957 which in event of disqualification, absence, sickness or disability of the judge of a separate juvenile court or a county judge who is also judge of the juvenile court in his county, authorize the substitution of county judges and circuit judges for judges of separate juvenile courts, and the substitution of circuit judges for county judges in those counties where there is no separate juvenile court and the county judge is the juvenile court judge.”
This quote is the text of the amendment itself, clarifying that existing statutes regarding judicial substitution in juvenile courts are preserved.
The case involves a proposed amendment to Rule 2.1a(4)(i) of the Florida Appellate Rules. The court considered the existing statutory provisions conce…
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 Disqualification Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
Rule 2.1a(4) (i), Florida Appellate Rules, effective July 1, 1958, 31 F.S.A., is amended by adding thereto the following:
“Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect any provision of the statutes in this state in effect on July 1, 1957 which in event of disqualification, absence, sickness or disability of the judge of a separate juvenile court or a county judge who is also judge of the juvenile court in his county, authorize the substitution of county judges and circuit judges for judges of separate juvenile courts, and the substitution of circuit judges for county judges in those counties where there is no separate juvenile court and the county judge is the juvenile court judge.”
This rule shall be effective as of July 9, 1958.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (72 total)
-
Ike Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960)…wheth-jer objected to during the trial or not. For these reasons I most respectfully dissent from the majority opinion both on the question of jurisdiction and on the merits. . Killen v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So. 2d 825. . Pait v. State, Fla.1959, 112 So. 2d 380. . Florida Statutes 920.01, F.S.A., recognized by F.A.R. 1.4, 31 F.S.A. as a rule of this Court, provides that the trial court “ * * * on motion of the defendant, or on its own motion, may grant a new trial.” The underscored portion of this rule se…1 / 3
-
Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2000)…cutor “undermine the jury’s discretion in determining the proper punishment by implying he, or another authority, has already made the careful decision required.” Appellant’s Initial Brief at 70. As support, Brooks primarily relies on Pait v. State, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1959). In Pait, a death penalty case, the prosecutor stated during closing argument: Before each murder trial that is prosecuted in this circuit, where I’m the State Attorney, a conference is held between me and my assistants to determine whe…
-
Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)…, 32 So. 836 (1902). This long standing decisional rule has also been enacted as a statute. § 924.-33, Fla.Stat. (1977). Although, in a capital case, this Court will carefully scrutinize any error before determining it to be harmless, Pait v. State, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1959), it will not presume that there was prejudice. Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1975). In determining whether an erroneous ruling below caused harm to the substanti…
Previewing 3 of 72 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence