When Can a Florida DCA Case Go to the Florida Supreme Court?

A Florida District Court of Appeal case can go to the Florida Supreme Court only when the DCA decision fits one of the limited jurisdictional categories established by article V, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. The most common potential routes are express and direct conflict, a certified question of great public importance, certified direct conflict, express constitutional construction, express validation of a state statute, or a decision expressly affecting a class of constitutional or state officers.

A DCA decision declaring a state statute or provision of the Florida Constitution invalid falls within the Florida Supreme Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction. Most other qualifying DCA decisions are subject to discretionary review, meaning that establishing jurisdiction does not require the Court to accept the case.

The Answer Depends On…

Whether a Florida DCA case can proceed to the Florida Supreme Court depends on:

• Whether the DCA issued a written opinion

• Whether the decision expressly and directly conflicts with another DCA or Florida Supreme Court decision

• Whether the conflict involves the same question of law

• Whether the DCA certified a question of great public importance

• Whether the DCA certified direct conflict with another district

• Whether the decision expressly construes the Florida or U.S. Constitution

• Whether it expressly declares a state statute valid

• Whether it expressly affects a class of constitutional or state officers

• Whether the DCA declared a state statute or Florida constitutional provision invalid

• Whether the result was a per curiam affirmance without an opinion

• Whether a narrow citation-based exception applies to a PCA

• Whether a timely motion for rehearing, clarification, certification, or written opinion should be filed

• Whether the notice invoking jurisdiction is filed within 30 days after rendition

• Whether the jurisdictional brief identifies a constitutional basis rather than merely arguing that the DCA was wrong

• Whether the mandate or underlying judgment should be stayed

• Whether the record and federal issues may later support U.S. Supreme Court review

• Whether the case arose in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth District Court of Appeal

Florida’s DCAs are the courts of last resort for the vast majority of Florida litigants. The Florida Supreme Court is not a general second appellate court that reviews ordinary claims of error after an unsuccessful DCA appeal.

Florida DCA-to-Supreme-Court Jurisdiction at a Glance

DCA decision	Type of Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction
Declares a state statute or Florida constitutional provision invalid	Mandatory appellate jurisdiction
Expressly declares a state statute valid	Discretionary jurisdiction
Expressly construes the Florida or U.S. Constitution	Discretionary jurisdiction
Expressly affects a class of constitutional or state officers	Discretionary jurisdiction
Expressly and directly conflicts with another DCA or Florida Supreme Court decision	Discretionary jurisdiction
Certifies a question of great public importance	Discretionary jurisdiction
Certifies direct conflict with another DCA	Discretionary jurisdiction
Issues an unexplained PCA	Usually no Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction
Certifies a pending trial-court order for immediate resolution	Possible pass-through review under Rule 9.125

These categories come directly from article V, section 3(b) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030.

Mandatory Review: The DCA Declares a Florida Law Invalid

The Florida Supreme Court must review a DCA decision declaring invalid:

• A Florida state statute; or

• A provision of the Florida Constitution.

This is different from discretionary jurisdiction. When the constitutional category applies and review is timely invoked, the Court has mandatory appellate jurisdiction rather than a choice whether to accept the case.

The distinction between valid and invalid matters:

• A DCA decision expressly declaring a state statute valid may support discretionary review.

• A DCA decision declaring a state statute or Florida constitutional provision invalid triggers mandatory appellate review.

Mandatory review is now limited to these DCA invalidity decisions. A decision merely interpreting a statute, applying a constitutional principle, or rejecting a claim for another reason does not necessarily fall within that category.

Express and Direct Conflict Jurisdiction

The most frequently asserted jurisdictional basis is that the DCA decision expressly and directly conflicts with:

• A decision of another Florida DCA; or

• A decision of the Florida Supreme Court;

on the same question of law.

The conflict standard is strict

The Florida Supreme Court has described express and direct conflict as a strict standard. Conflict generally exists when the DCA:

1. Announces a rule of law that conflicts with another binding Florida appellate decision; or

2. Applies a rule of law to substantially the same controlling facts but reaches a conflicting outcome.

It is not enough to show that two cases involve similar subjects, use different language, or might have reached inconsistent results on materially different records.

The conflict must appear in the DCA decision

At the jurisdictional stage, the Supreme Court ordinarily focuses on the DCA decision itself. Rule 9.120 limits the jurisdictional appendix to the DCA decision, and the jurisdictional brief must address jurisdiction rather than reargue the underlying merits.

A petitioner generally cannot establish conflict merely by:

• Recounting trial evidence omitted from the DCA opinion

• Comparing the trial record with another case

• Arguing that the DCA misapplied settled law without an express conflict

• Attaching additional record materials to manufacture jurisdiction

• Asking the Supreme Court to correct an ordinary legal error

A strong conflict-jurisdiction argument should identify the precise propositions of law that cannot coexist.

Conflict jurisdiction remains discretionary

Even when the DCA decision appears to satisfy the conflict standard, the Florida Supreme Court may decline review.

The Court also may initially accept jurisdiction and later discharge it after closer examination. In a 2024 decision, the Court acknowledged express conflict, accepted jurisdiction, and then exercised its discretion to discharge jurisdiction after briefing and oral argument.

Establishing that the Court may review the case is therefore different from persuading it that the Court should review the case.

Certified Questions of Great Public Importance

A DCA may certify that its decision passes upon a question of great public importance.

Certification can create a clear constitutional route to the Florida Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court still retains discretion whether to accept the case.

A certified question may be appropriate when the issue:

• Is likely to recur statewide

• Affects many litigants, courts, businesses, or government entities

• Requires uniform statewide guidance

• Concerns an unsettled statutory or constitutional question

• Has consequences extending substantially beyond the parties

• Affects the administration of justice throughout Florida

The fact that a case is financially significant or personally important to the parties does not alone make the legal question one of great public importance.

Can a party ask the DCA to certify a question?

Yes.

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 permits a motion for certification. The motion must identify the issue or proposed question that should be certified as one of great public importance. It generally must be filed within 15 days after the DCA’s decision and combined with any request for rehearing, clarification, or a written opinion in one post-decision motion.

Certification should not be requested reflexively. A focused motion should explain:

• The exact legal question

• Why existing Florida law does not adequately resolve it

• Why the issue is likely to recur

• Why statewide guidance is needed

• Why the question can be answered from the existing case and record

Certified Direct Conflict

A DCA also may certify that its decision is in direct conflict with a decision from another DCA.

This route differs from ordinary express-conflict jurisdiction because the DCA itself identifies and certifies the interdistrict conflict. The Florida Supreme Court still decides whether to exercise its discretionary review.

Certification may be particularly appropriate when:

• Two districts have adopted incompatible rules

• Trial courts in different regions must follow different standards

• The conflict affects recurring litigation

• The same conduct produces different outcomes depending on geographic location

• Uniform statewide administration requires resolution

A Rule 9.330 certification motion should identify the conflicting case and explain the legal proposition on which the decisions diverge.

Express Construction of the Florida or U.S. Constitution

The Florida Supreme Court may review a DCA decision that expressly construes a provision of:

• The Florida Constitution; or

• The United States Constitution.

The word expressly is important. The DCA decision should explain or define the meaning, scope, or legal effect of the constitutional provision. Merely citing the Constitution or applying settled constitutional law may not establish this jurisdictional category.

Potential examples can involve:

• Due process

• Freedom of speech

• Search-and-seizure protections

• Access to courts

• Separation of powers

• Governmental authority

• Equal protection

• Florida constitutional privacy

• Property rights

• Jury-trial rights

The jurisdictional brief should identify the specific constitutional provision and the DCA’s express construction of it. It should not merely restate constitutional arguments the DCA rejected without explanation.

Express Validation of a State Statute

The Florida Supreme Court may exercise discretionary jurisdiction when a DCA expressly declares a Florida statute valid.

This route generally requires more than the DCA merely applying the statute. The decision should expressly uphold the statute against a challenge to its validity.

The distinction again matters:

• Express declaration that a statute is valid: discretionary review.

• Declaration that a state statute is invalid: mandatory review.

Counsel should examine the exact wording of the DCA decision and the nature of the constitutional or statutory challenge.

Decisions Expressly Affecting a Class of Constitutional or State Officers

The Florida Supreme Court may review a DCA decision expressly affecting a class of constitutional or state officers.

The category is not ordinarily satisfied merely because a public official is a party. The decision should affect the powers, duties, authority, or legal status of an identifiable class of officers rather than only the individual circumstances of one official.

Potential classes may include:

• Sheriffs

• Clerks of court

• State attorneys

• Public defenders

• Tax collectors

• Supervisors of elections

• Judges

• Other constitutional or state officers

The jurisdictional analysis should identify the class and explain how the decision expressly alters or determines the class’s legal authority or obligations.

Can a PCA Go to the Florida Supreme Court?

Usually not.

A per curiam affirmance without a written opinion ordinarily gives the Florida Supreme Court no express reasoning to review for conflict, constitutional construction, statutory validity, or another ordinary discretionary category. The result generally leaves the DCA as the final Florida court for the case.

Narrow citation-based exceptions may exist when a PCA cites controlling authority in a procedural posture that independently supplies a recognized jurisdictional basis. Those exceptions are technical and should not be assumed merely because a PCA contains a citation.

Requesting a written opinion after a PCA

Rule 9.330 allows a party to request a written opinion within 15 days when a written decision would provide:

• A legitimate basis for Florida Supreme Court review

• An explanation for an apparent departure from precedent

• Guidance on an issue that is recurring, pending elsewhere, disputed among lower courts, or one of first impression

The request must identify a proper rule-based reason and cannot simply demand that the DCA explain why the party lost.

A party may also combine the written-opinion request with:

• Rehearing

• Clarification

• Certification of conflict

• Certification of a question of great public importance

Rule 9.330 permits only one combined post-decision motion concerning the particular decision.

Pass-Through Certification Before the DCA Decides the Appeal

In an unusual case, a DCA may certify a pending trial-court order or judgment for immediate resolution by the Florida Supreme Court before the DCA completes its own appellate review.

Rule 9.125 applies when the pending DCA appeal:

• Is of great public importance; or

• Will have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout Florida;

and requires immediate Supreme Court resolution.

The DCA may certify the case on its own motion or upon a party’s suggestion. A party’s suggestion generally must be filed within 10 days after filing the notice of appeal, and another party may respond within 10 days after service. The DCA is not required to rule on the suggestion, and filing it does not alter the ordinary appellate deadlines.

This procedure is intended to be rare. It may be relevant in cases involving:

• Urgent statewide constitutional disputes

• Election administration

• Government authority

• Major institutional questions

• Immediate statewide court-administration consequences

• Time-sensitive legal questions for which ordinary DCA review would be inadequate

What Is the Deadline to Invoke Florida Supreme Court Jurisdiction?

For ordinary discretionary review under Rule 9.120, the notice invoking jurisdiction generally must be filed with the clerk of the DCA within 30 days after rendition of the decision to be reviewed.

The notice must identify:

• The DCA decision being reviewed

• Its rendition date

• The constitutional basis for Supreme Court jurisdiction

• The parties and lower-court case information required by the rule

The notice is filed in the DCA—not initially in the Florida Supreme Court.

How post-decision motions affect rendition

A timely and authorized motion for rehearing, clarification, certification, or written opinion generally postpones rendition until the DCA disposes of the motion.

An unauthorized, untimely, or procedurally defective motion may not protect the 30-day deadline. Counsel should confirm the motion’s effect rather than assume that any request for reconsideration extends the jurisdictional period.

What Is the Jurisdictional Briefing Schedule?

In an ordinary Rule 9.120 discretionary-review proceeding:

• The notice is due within 30 days after rendition

• The petitioner’s jurisdictional brief is due within 10 days after filing the notice

• The respondent’s jurisdictional brief is due within 30 days after service of the petitioner’s brief

• No reply brief is permitted

The petitioner’s argument must be limited to the Florida Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, and the appendix ordinarily contains only a conformed copy of the DCA decision.

When jurisdiction is based on a DCA-certified question of great public importance or certified direct conflict, the rules use a different streamlined procedure and do not permit ordinary jurisdictional briefs.

What Should a Jurisdictional Brief Argue?

The jurisdictional brief should answer two different questions:

1. Does the Florida Constitution authorize the Court to review this decision?

2. Why should the Court exercise its discretion?

The first question is jurisdictional. The second is prudential.

Establishing constitutional jurisdiction

The brief should identify the exact category, such as:

• Express and direct conflict

• Express constitutional construction

• Express validation of a state statute

• Express effect on a class of officers

• Certified question

• Certified direct conflict

The argument should quote or precisely describe the relevant part of the DCA decision.

Explaining why review should be accepted

A concise discretionary argument may address:

• Statewide importance

• Need for uniformity

• Recurring legal consequences

• Conflict affecting many pending cases

• Government or business reliance interests

• Confusion among trial courts

• Consequences of leaving the issue unresolved

• Suitability of the case as a vehicle

The jurisdictional brief should not become an abbreviated merits brief. Rule 9.120 confines the threshold argument to jurisdiction.

What Evidence and Record Materials Matter?

Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction generally turns on the DCA decision rather than a new evidentiary presentation.

At the jurisdictional stage, counsel should review:

• The DCA opinion or order

• Any concurrence or dissent

• Cases cited by the DCA

• Any certification language

• The trial-court judgment

• The DCA briefs

• The post-decision motion and ruling

• The appellate docket

• The mandate and any stay orders

The parties ordinarily cannot establish jurisdiction by submitting new evidence, expanding the facts, or asking the Supreme Court to investigate the trial record for hidden conflict. The threshold appendix ordinarily consists only of the DCA decision.

The underlying record becomes more important if the Court accepts or postpones decision on jurisdiction. Rule 9.120 then requires transmission of the appellate record and transcripts, and the matter proceeds toward merits briefing.

What Happens If the Florida Supreme Court Accepts Jurisdiction?

If the Court accepts jurisdiction—or postpones its jurisdictional decision—the DCA clerk transmits the record, and the case moves into merits briefing.

Under the current rule, the petitioner’s initial merits brief generally must be served within 35 days after rendition of the order accepting or postponing decision on jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court may then:

• Affirm the DCA decision

• Quash or reverse the DCA decision

• Approve or disapprove the DCA’s legal rule

• Resolve the certified question

• Resolve the interdistrict conflict

• Remand for further proceedings

• Decide another properly identified issue

• Discharge jurisdiction without reaching the merits

Acceptance is therefore an important procedural victory, but it does not guarantee a merits decision or favorable result.

Can the Other Side Raise Additional Issues?

Potentially.

Rule 9.120 permits a petitioner or respondent to identify issues for review or cross-review that are independent of the issue supporting jurisdiction. Those additional issues must be identified in the statement of issues included with the jurisdictional briefing.

This means the party seeking Supreme Court review should assess more than the jurisdictional issue. Acceptance may reopen strategic questions involving:

• Alternative grounds for affirmance

• Preserved cross-review issues

• The scope of relief

• Harmless error

• Remedy and remand

• Constitutional avoidance

• The effect of a broader ruling on related claims

Does Seeking Florida Supreme Court Review Stay the DCA Decision?

Not automatically.

A notice invoking discretionary jurisdiction does not itself prevent the DCA mandate from issuing or stop enforcement of the underlying judgment. The party may need to seek a stay, preserve an existing stay, or request that the mandate be withheld.

Stay analysis may involve:

• Likelihood that Supreme Court jurisdiction will be accepted

• Likelihood of success on the merits

• Harm if no stay is entered

• Whether the harm can later be remedied

• Bond or security

• Money-judgment enforcement

• Injunction compliance

• Transfer of property

• Business-control consequences

• Disclosure of confidential information

A stay entered by a Florida lower tribunal or appellate court generally remains in effect during Florida appellate review until mandate unless modified or vacated. The wording of the particular stay order still controls.

Can the Florida Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional Decision Be Reheard?

Generally, no.

Rule 9.330 prohibits a motion for rehearing or clarification directed to the Florida Supreme Court’s grant or denial of a request that it exercise discretionary jurisdiction over a DCA decision.

That restriction makes the original jurisdictional filing especially important. The petitioner ordinarily has:

• One timely notice

• One jurisdictional brief

• No reply

• No rehearing from the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional decision

The jurisdictional theory should therefore be identified and developed accurately from the beginning.

What Happens If the Florida Supreme Court Declines Review?

The DCA decision remains in place and retains whatever precedential effect it otherwise possesses.

Depending on the case, the parties may then need to address:

• Issuance of the DCA mandate

• Judgment enforcement

• Remand proceedings

• A new trial

• Injunction compliance

• Collection

• Appellate fees and costs

• Release or enforcement of a bond

• Settlement

• Potential U.S. Supreme Court review of a preserved federal issue

The Florida Supreme Court’s denial of discretionary review ordinarily does not amount to an endorsement of the DCA’s reasoning. It means the Court declined to exercise the limited jurisdiction invoked.

Can the Case Later Go to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Potentially, but only if the case presents a properly preserved federal question and satisfies federal finality and certiorari requirements.

Counsel should evaluate:

• Whether the federal issue was raised and preserved

• Whether the DCA decided the issue

• Whether Florida Supreme Court review was available

• Whether that review was timely pursued

• Whether an adequate and independent state-law ground supports the decision

• Whether the state proceedings are final

• Whether a stay is needed

• Whether the issue presents a federal conflict or nationally important question

A Florida Supreme Court jurisdictional strategy should therefore account for both state-law review and potential U.S. Supreme Court consequences.

A Practical First-48-Hour Framework After a DCA Decision

1. Identify the type of decision

Determine whether the DCA issued:

• A written opinion

• A PCA without opinion

• A PCA with citations

• An opinion containing certification

• An opinion declaring a statute valid or invalid

• A decision construing a constitutional provision

• A decision affecting a class of officers

2. Calendar every deadline

Immediately calendar:

• The 15-day Rule 9.330 deadline

• The 30-day notice-to-invoke deadline

• The 10-day jurisdictional-brief deadline

• The DCA mandate date

• Any stay or bond deadlines

• Potential U.S. Supreme Court timing

3. Compare the decision with Florida precedent

For conflict jurisdiction, identify:

• The precise rule announced by the DCA

• The allegedly conflicting decision

• The same question of law

• The substantially similar controlling facts, where relevant

• Why the two decisions cannot be reconciled

4. Decide whether a Rule 9.330 motion is justified

Evaluate rehearing, clarification, certification, or a written-opinion request without filing a repetitive motion reflexively.

5. Evaluate the jurisdictional vehicle

Ask whether the case presents:

• True conflict

• A certified issue

• Constitutional construction

• Statutory validity

• A class-of-officers issue

• Mandatory invalidity review

• No viable Florida Supreme Court route

6. Review enforcement and mandate risk

Determine what happens if the DCA mandate issues before Supreme Court review is resolved.

7. Preserve the larger appellate strategy

Consider remand, settlement, business consequences, federal questions, and possible U.S. Supreme Court review.

What Are the Biggest Risks?

Treating the Florida Supreme Court as another ordinary appellate court

The Court cannot review a DCA decision merely because it appears legally incorrect.

Missing the 30-day jurisdictional deadline

A potentially qualifying case may be lost if the notice is untimely.

Missing the earlier 15-day Rule 9.330 deadline

The opportunity to seek certification, clarification, rehearing, or a written opinion may expire before the notice-to-invoke deadline.

Arguing the merits instead of jurisdiction

A jurisdictional brief should establish a constitutional category and explain why discretionary review is warranted.

Claiming conflict that does not appear in the decision

Conflict ordinarily must be express and direct, not reconstructed from the trial record.

Assuming every constitutional case qualifies

The DCA generally must expressly construe a constitutional provision, not merely reject a constitutional argument.

Assuming every PCA can be reviewed

An unexplained PCA ordinarily forecloses Florida Supreme Court review.

Filing a repetitive written-opinion request

Rule 9.330 requires a legitimate basis for a written opinion, not merely dissatisfaction with the outcome.

Assuming certification guarantees review

Certified questions and certified conflict still fall within discretionary jurisdiction.

Assuming acceptance guarantees a merits decision

The Florida Supreme Court may later discharge jurisdiction.

Failing to seek a stay

The mandate or judgment may become enforceable while Supreme Court review is pursued.

Florida District Courts of Appeal and Geographic Coverage

Florida has six DCAs reviewing trial-court decisions from different regions of the state. Most appealed trial-court decisions are decided by three-judge DCA panels, and only a limited class of DCA decisions can proceed to the Florida Supreme Court.

Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction issues may arise from cases originating in:

• Miami and Miami-Dade County

• Fort Lauderdale and Broward County

• Boca Raton, Delray Beach, West Palm Beach, and Palm Beach County

• Orlando and Orange County

• Tampa and Hillsborough County

• Jacksonville and Duval County

• Naples and Collier County

• Fort Myers and Lee County

• Tallahassee and Leon County

• Pensacola and Northwest Florida

The same constitutional categories apply statewide, but the alleged conflict, DCA precedent, certification language, and effect of the opinion must be evaluated case by case.

Authority Block: Florida Supreme Court Review of DCA Decisions

The principal authorities include:

• Florida Constitution article V, section 3(b)(1): mandatory review of DCA decisions declaring a state statute or Florida constitutional provision invalid

• Florida Constitution article V, section 3(b)(3): discretionary review involving statutory validity, constitutional construction, classes of officers, and express direct conflict

• Florida Constitution article V, section 3(b)(4): certified questions of great public importance and certified direct conflict

• Florida Constitution article V, section 3(b)(5): pass-through certification of pending trial-court orders

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020: rendition

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030: Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110: mandatory appeal procedure

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.120: discretionary proceedings to review DCA decisions

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.125: pass-through certification

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310: stays pending review

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330: rehearing, clarification, certification, and written-opinion motions

• Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.340: mandate

• Nielsen v. City of Sarasota: forms of decisional conflict

• Jollie v. State: narrow citation-PCA conflict jurisdiction

• Dodi Publishing Co. v. Editorial América, S.A.: limits on deriving conflict from cited authorities

• Gandy v. State: jurisdictional limits involving unexplained per curiam decisions

• Kartsonis v. State: strict express-and-direct-conflict standard

• Florida Department of Corrections v. Gould: conflict jurisdiction and the Court’s discretion to discharge jurisdiction after acceptance

The current Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure took effect July 1, 2026.

How Biazzo Law Approaches Florida Supreme Court Review

Biazzo Law evaluates possible Florida Supreme Court review from both the DCA and higher-court perspectives.

The firm can assist businesses, professionals, individuals, organizations, general counsel, trial lawyers, appellate lawyers, judgment winners, judgment debtors, and referring counsel with:

• Immediate review of DCA opinions

• Florida Supreme Court jurisdictional analysis

• Notices invoking discretionary jurisdiction

• Jurisdictional briefs and responses

• Express-and-direct-conflict analysis

• Certified questions of great public importance

• Certified-conflict strategy

• Motions for certification

• Motions for written opinions

• Motions for rehearing or clarification

• PCA analysis

• Mandatory review of statutory-invalidity decisions

• Constitutional-construction cases

• Class-of-officers jurisdiction

• Pass-through certification

• DCA mandate stays

• Emergency injunction and stay strategy

• Merits briefing after jurisdiction is accepted

• Remand and enforcement planning

• Federal-question preservation

• U.S. Supreme Court certiorari and amicus strategy

Biazzo Law combines Florida civil appellate practice with federal appellate advocacy, emergency-injunction readiness, and U.S. Supreme Court and amicus experience. That appellate-aware approach helps distinguish an ordinary adverse DCA result from a decision that genuinely presents a jurisdictional route to the Florida Supreme Court.

The firm can serve as lead further-review counsel, co-counsel with existing appellate counsel, limited-scope jurisdictional counsel, emergency-stay counsel, merits counsel, or strategic counsel evaluating Florida and U.S. Supreme Court consequences.

Related Biazzo Law Resources

• Parent service page: Florida Appellate Attorney and Civil Appeals

• Related guide: What Can a Business Do After a Florida Per Curiam Affirmance Without Opinion?

• Related guide: Florida State Appellate Advocacy

• Contact page: Contact Biazzo Law

Frequently Asked Questions

Can every Florida DCA case be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court?

No. The Florida Supreme Court has limited constitutional jurisdiction. Most DCA decisions are final because they do not fall within one of the mandatory or discretionary categories in article V, section 3.

What is express and direct conflict?

Express and direct conflict generally exists when a DCA announces a legal rule inconsistent with another Florida appellate decision or applies the law to substantially the same controlling facts but reaches an incompatible result. The conflict must involve the same question of law.

Can the Florida Supreme Court review a PCA without opinion?

Usually not. An unexplained PCA ordinarily contains no express reasoning establishing conflict or another jurisdictional category. Narrow citation-based exceptions may apply in limited circumstances.

How long do I have to invoke Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction?

For ordinary discretionary review, the notice generally must be filed in the DCA within 30 days after rendition of the decision.

How long do I have to request certification or a written opinion?

A combined Rule 9.330 motion seeking rehearing, clarification, certification, or a written opinion generally must be filed within 15 days after the DCA’s decision.

Does a certified question guarantee Florida Supreme Court review?

No. A certified question of great public importance creates a recognized jurisdictional route, but the Florida Supreme Court still has discretion whether to accept the case.

Does filing a notice invoking jurisdiction stay the DCA mandate?

No. The party may need to seek a stay of the mandate or other relief to prevent enforcement while Florida Supreme Court review is pending.

Can the Florida Supreme Court accept a case and later dismiss it?

Yes. The Court may accept jurisdiction and later discharge it after further review, briefing, or oral argument.

Schedule a Litigation Strategy Review

The period after a Florida DCA decision can involve overlapping 15-day and 30-day deadlines, mandate and enforcement risks, and a narrow set of possible Florida Supreme Court jurisdictional routes.

The analysis should address the wording of the DCA decision, express conflict, certification, constitutional construction, statutory validity, PCA limitations, rendition, the jurisdictional briefing procedure, stay options, and potential U.S. Supreme Court consequences.

Schedule a litigation strategy review to evaluate a Florida DCA opinion, PCA, certified question, conflict issue, constitutional ruling, notice invoking jurisdiction, jurisdictional brief, mandate stay, or potential Florida or U.S. Supreme Court strategy.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction, deadlines, certification, conflict review, stays, and further appellate remedies depend on the precise DCA decision, docket, record, issues, and procedural posture. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.