IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 3.10 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 3.10 of the Florida Appellate Rules to specify five categories of cases in which oral arguments would be heard by the full court en banc, effective October 1, 1959.
The Court held that oral arguments would be heard en banc in cases involving the death penalty, challenges to the validity of state or federal statutes/treaties, interpretations of the Florida or Federal Constitution, certain certified or conflicting decisions from district courts of appeal, and other matters designated by the Chief Justice.
“Oral arguments will be heard by the Supreme Court en banc,(seven Justices) in the following cases, to wit:”
This quote establishes the core of the amendment, listing the types of cases requiring en banc review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Supreme Court considered amending Rule 3.10 of its Appellate Rules to clarify when oral arguments would be heard by the entire court (en b…
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.
Effective on and after October 1, 1959, Rule 3.10, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S. A. as they were in effect on July 1, 1958, be and the same is hereby amended by adding thereto the following:
“g. Oral arguments will be heard by the Supreme Court en banc,(seven Justices) in the following cases, to wit:
“(1) Appeals from judgments imposing the death penalty.
“(2) Appeals from final judgments or decrees directly passing upon the validity of a State Statute or a Federal Statute or Treaty.
“(3) Appeals from final judgments or decrees construing a controlling provision of the Florida or Federal Constitution.
“(4) In all cases when the writ has been issued and the matter is set for oral argument on a petition for certio-rari to review a decision of a court of appeal affecting a class of constitutional or state officers, or one that passes upon a question certified by a district court of appeal to be of great public interest, or one that is in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the Sureme Court on the same point of law.
“(5) Such other matters as shall be designated by the Chief Justice.”
Nothing herein shall prevent the Court from sitting as scheduled if a constitutional quorum is present.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.