By Chance Lyman
On just about any (court) day of
the week, an appellate court could issue a decision changing the law throughout
Florida. Keeping abreast of these changes
in Florida’s caselaw is a fundamental expectation of any attorney. And that expectation is generally heightened
for appellate attorneys. While knowing
about the newest big case gives any attorney an edge in their practice, not
knowing can have dire consequences.
But have no fear—The Record’s new
series is here! In keeping with the
theme of staying abreast of our ever-changing body of caselaw, “CONFLICT
CERTIFIED” will provide regular updates on one of the most important types of
new decisions: cases creating conflicts amongst the district courts of
appeal. We all know that a case from one
district court binds trial courts throughout the state in the absence of interdistrict
conflict. But the tricky part is knowing
about that sometimes-difficult-to-research interdistrict decision. As an added benefit, knowing about new
interdistrict conflicts helps us all stay tuned in on the potential for a future
decision from the Florida Supreme Court giving the final word on the contested
issue.
That segue brings us to the subject
of the first piece in this new series: the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Askew
v. Florida Department of Children & Families, 385 So. 3d 1034 (Fla.
2024). While not itself a case creating
interdistrict conflict or discussing certified conflict jurisdiction, Askew is a good place to start our series because it underscores the importance of district
court decisions that expressly and directly conflict with the decision of
another district court (or courts) and sets a backdrop for conflict cases
generally.
In Askew, the Florida
Supreme Court closed the door on “misapplication jurisdiction,” which previous
decisions of the Court had said occurs “ ‘when a court relies on a decision
that involves a situation materially at variance with the one under review.’ ” Id. at 1037 (quoting Advanced
Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr., Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 140 So. 3d
529, 534 (Fla. 2014)). As the Askew Court explained, the misapplication “theory of jurisdiction is incompatible
with the constitutionally mandated requirement of direct and express conflict”
found in article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Id.
Applying the supremacy-of-text principle, the Court acknowledged “the
flaws in [its] misapplication jurisprudence and recognize[d] that [it]
overstepped [its] constitutional authority by applying this theory of conflict
jurisdiction.” Id. at 1038.
Askew is a change in
caselaw that leaves us with an important takeaway—one that highlights the goal
of this new series. The path to
“conflict” jurisdiction in the Florida Supreme Court just narrowed; if a
practitioner invokes the court’s express and direct conflict jurisdiction under
article V, section 3(b)(3) the only way the court has jurisdiction is if the
decision satisfies the strict standard of true express and direct
conflict. With the path narrowing, what
better way to follow the status of decisions in conflict with others than to
monitor the caselaw for district court decisions containing that magical
concluding phrase: “CONFLICT CERTIFIED.”
Stay tuned for the next
installment in the series!
If you are interested in
authoring a submission for the Conflict Certified Series, or any submission for
The Record, please reach out to the Chair of the Publications Committee, Chance
Lyman, and the Editor of The Record, Eleanor Sills.
About the author: Chance Lyman
is a board-certified appellate attorney with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
in Tampa. He previously clerked for
Judge Marva Crenshaw of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, where he
also worked as a central staff attorney.
He is presently a member of the Appellate Court Rules Committee and
Chair of the Publications Committee for The Florida Bar’s Appellate Practice
Section.
