{"count":243007,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz00Mi45ODYxNDUmcz0xMDMyODM5NSZ0PW8mZD0yMDI2LTEwLTA1JnA9Mg%3D%3D&q=SCOPE+AND+EFFECT+OF+AMENDMENTS+Procedural+Law&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9947513/in-re-amendments-to-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9947513,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC2023-1472","docket_id":68891394,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-27T16:33:29.458506Z","date_created":"2024-06-27T15:06:17.540976Z","score":{"bm25":62.299713}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/2436514","id":10414122,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/06/27/in_re_amendments_to_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:23:56.753045Z","date_created":"2024-06-27T15:06:17.543127Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"76dd012ef5fc7c0b6d3c3feef96478d9733dced5","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                            ____________\n\n                         No. SC2023-1472\n                           ____________\n\n  IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF\n                    PROCEDURE.\n\n                           June 27, 2024\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n     The Florida Bar’s Family Law Rules Committee (Committee)\n\nhas filed a report proposing amendments to Florida Family Law\n\nRules of Procedure 12.400 (Confidentiality of Records and\n\nProceedings), 12.4","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10414122],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9425042/in-re-amendments-to-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9425042,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-09-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC2023-0434","docket_id":67769963,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:12:59.692648Z","date_created":"2023-09-07T15:06:15.887040Z","score":{"bm25":61.373287}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/877370","id":9838667,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/09/07/in_re_amendments_to_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:03:24.115200Z","date_created":"2023-09-07T15:06:15.888918Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4e999e11875ec8959252cb0bc94f5a98283e574c","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                            ____________\n\n                         No. SC2023-0434\n                           ____________\n\n  IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF\n                    PROCEDURE.\n\n                         September 7, 2023\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n     On March 21, 2023, The Florida Bar’s Family Law Rules\n\nCommittee filed a report proposing amendments to Florida Family\n\nLaw Rules of Procedure 12.070 (Process), 12.280 (General\n\nProvisions Governi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9838667],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10603463/in-re-amendments-to-florida-family-law-rule-of-procedure-12410/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.410","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10603463,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC2024-1560","docket_id":70522469,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-12T15:05:06.041878Z","date_created":"2025-06-12T15:05:05.989031Z","score":{"bm25":59.968327}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/2453321","id":11070051,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/12/in_re_amendments_to_florida_family_law_rule_of_procedure_12.410.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:35:52.994585Z","date_created":"2025-06-12T15:05:05.990915Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b1e49383aa78133a52b94ba664ac62c663e44b43","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                           ____________\n\n                         No. SC2024-1560\n                           ____________\n\n  IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULE OF\n                PROCEDURE 12.410.\n\n                          June 12, 2025\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n     The Florida Bar’s Family Law Rules Committee has filed a\n\nreport proposing amendments to Florida Family Law Rule of\n\nProcedure 12.410 (Subpoena). 1 The Board of Governors of The\n\nFlorida Bar recomme","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11070051],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4375984/in-re-amendments-to-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"Judge Laurel Moore Lee, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Plant City, Florida; Charles Cole Jeffries, Jr., Past Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Tampa, Florida; and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner, Sarah E. Kay, Co-Chair, Rules and Forms Committee, Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, Sessums Black Caballero Ficarrotta, Tampa, Florida; C. Debra Welch, Co-Chair, Rules and Forms Committee, Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, The Law Firm of C. Debra Welch PA, West Palm Beach, Florida; Laura Davis Smith, Chair, Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, Greene Smith & Associates, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida; Thomas J. Sasser, Jorge M. Cestero, Peter J. Trombadore, and Trisha P. Armstrong of Sasser, Cestero & Sasser, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida; and Gregory Firestone, Ph.D., Sarasota, Florida, Responding with Comments","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","citation":["214 So. 3d 400","42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 319","2017 WL 1031456","2017 Fla. LEXIS 598"],"citeCount":13,"cluster_id":4375984,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-03-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC16-978","docket_id":4618309,"judge":"Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Canady, Polston, Lawson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:27:27.590314Z","date_created":"2017-03-16T15:05:54.940255Z","score":{"bm25":59.893223}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1716133,1768178,1837180],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-978.pdf","id":4153237,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/03/16/in_re_amendments_to_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:34:38.644408Z","date_created":"2017-03-16T15:05:54.946294Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f2c9581ffc8b6bd2af6d0c38428104d9a2d5c600","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM.\n \n\n  This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure and Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Forms. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.\n \n\n  BACKGROUND\n \n\n  The Family Law Rules Committee (Committee) has filed an out-of-cycle report recommendin","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4153237],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7335388/conservation-law-found-v-ross/","attorney":"*83Peter Shelley, Pro Hac Vice, Erica A. Fuller, Pro Hac Vice, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff., Kristen Byrnes Floom, Sarah Izfar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants., JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge *84When it comes to our nation's critical ocean habitat, Plaintiff Conservation Law Foundation says that the federal government has one job: protect it. So when the National Marine Fisheries Service, an agency under the auspices of the Secretary of Commerce, approved a new management plan for the Gulf of Maine that opened up a broad swath of ocean to the commercial and recreational fishing fleet, CLF was understandably concerned. Hoping to reel in the damage, Plaintiff seeks this Court's intervention. CLF's primary contention is that the Agency ran aground when it failed to sufficiently prioritize conservation measures over economic considerations. The judicial role in evaluating such agency action, however, is limited. While the Court carefully reviews the record to ensure that the Service has sufficiently articulated a rational line based on relevant factors between its factual findings and final conclusions, its function does not extend further. Policymaking is not in the Court's wheelhouse. Finding that the Government satisfied its obligations, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendants' Cross-Motion., The saga underlying this suit is decades in the making. At its heart lies the Service's modification of management plans that govern fisheries in waters seaward of New England. Within one geographic area - the Gulf of Maine - this amendment opened to fishing an ocean corridor that was previously off limits. The series of steps that ultimately spawned this decision is intertwined with one statute's operation: the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, commonly known as just the Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA. To provide the necessary context, the Court will thus begin with a brief exposition of this legal scheme. With the stage set, it will then provide an overview of the history that led us here. (On a logistical note, the Court, following the lead of the parties and the format of the appendix, will introduce appendix cites with the acronym \"EFH,\" which stands for essential fish habitat.), Fisheries management is no simple task. To aid in this \"exceedingly complex\" undertaking, see Oceana, Inc. v. Evans, 384 F.Supp.2d 203, 241-42 (D.D.C. 2005), the Act establishes eight regional Fishery Management Councils, each of which monitors and oversees certain fisheries under its control. See 16 U.S.C. § 1852(a), (h). The makeup of each Council's voting membership is designed to account for the *85views of a variety of stakeholders with relevant expertise. On each board sits a state official from the region with \"marine fishery management responsibility and expertise,\" the regional director of the Service (or her designee), and individuals appointed by the Secretary of Commerce who are knowledgeable regarding either the \"conservation and management ... of the fishery resources of the geographical area concerned\" or the \"commercial or recreational harvest\" of those fisheries. Id. § 1852(b)(1)-(2). For the purpose of this action, the New England Fishery Management Council is the relevant body. This Council oversees fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of states from Maine to Connecticut. Id. § 1852(a)(1)(A). To assist each Council in carrying out its responsibilities, the MSA provides in turn for the creation of standing committees of scientists and fishing-industry experts that report periodically on the status and health of fish stocks in each fishery, peer-review new scientific methods for fishery conservation and management, and advise the Council throughout its functions. Id. §§ 1852(g)(1) ; 1852(g)(3)(A); 1852(i)(5). The Service and the Council, assisted by its standing committees, together act to address imbalances in aquatic ecosystems., Central to this role - as well as to this case - is the creation of Fishery Management Plans. Each Council must develop and maintain such a plan for each fishery under its control. Id. § 1852(a). Fisheries, as defined by the Act, are either \"one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and management\" or \"any fishing for such stocks.\" Id. § 1802(13). Stocks, in turn, can be a species or subspecies of fish. Id. § 1802(42). A single FMP thus often governs the management of multiple species of fish. Once developed and implemented, plans can be updated by amendments, which \"alter Plans in broad strokes.\" Conservation Law Found., 37 F.Supp.3d at 239 (internal citation omitted)., The Council's FMPs and amendments must follow multiple prescriptions. First, they must be in compliance with ten \"national standards for fishery management\" established by the MSA, see 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a), which set forth a range of broad and sometimes-competing objectives. See Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 24 F.Supp.3d 49, 68 (D.D.C. 2014). Second, plans must contain certain \"[r]equired provisions.\" 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a). Many of these provisions ask for specific information - for example, \"the number of vessels involved\" with the relevant fishery, id. § 1853(a)(2) - while others set directives more akin to the national standards. See, e.g., id. § 1853(a)(1)(A) (requiring that FMPs contain measures \"necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery\"). Finally, the Act provides a suite of \"[d]iscretionary provisions\" that the Council \"may\" include. Id. § 1853(b)., Once prepared, each Council submits proposed FMPs or subsequent amendments to the Service. The Service's role at this stage is confined largely to determining whether the proposed plan or amendment complies with applicable law, rather than developing its own preferred measures. It thus acts on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce to \"approve, disapprove, or partially approve\" the plan or amendment. See 16 U.S.C. § 1854(a)(3). In determining whether or not to approve an FMP, the Service must review it for consistency with the requirements of the MSA, including the national standards and content requirements found at §§ 1851(a) and 1853(a), and, following a 60-day public-notice-and-comment period, \"take into account the information, views, and comments received from interested persons.\" 16 U.S.C. § 1854(a)(1)-(2). If, upon completing this review, the Agency determines *86that a plan complies with applicable law and thus approves the FMP or amendment, a final rule and one or more implementing regulations are published in the Federal Register. Id. § 1854(b)(3). Approved FMPs and amendments are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act if challenged within 30 days of the regulation's promulgation. Id. § 1855(f)(1)., Finally, in addition to these requirements of the MSA, any plan or amendment must also conform to the procedural mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Because the contours of that Act are not necessary to understand the administrative process here, the Court saves a rehearsal of its specifics for a later discussion., After making changes responsive to that court's order, the Council embarked on a second omnibus amendment in 2004 with the purpose of developing a comprehensive approach to essential-fish-habitat management. See 69 Fed. Reg. at 8368 ; see also ECF No. 25, Attach. 1 (Def. Opp. & Mot.) at 4-5. More specifically, this process sought to update the \"EFH components\" of each of the seven fishery-management plans under the Council's purview. See 69 Fed. Reg. at 8367. These plans account for the management of 28 species of fish and their respective habitats within the seven fisheries. See EFH 7795-7803. Generally speaking, the Service operationalizes its habitat-protection aims by creating geographically bounded \"habitat management areas\" (HMAs) or \"habitat closures,\" within which it places restrictions on types of fishing. See, e.g., 50 C.F.R. § 648.370. This effort eventually yielded the omnibus amendment challenged here, which the Court will refer to as the Habitat Amendment. (Given that this is the second such *87endeavor, this Amendment also appears in the record and briefs as the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 and OHA2.), Then, in 2012, the Council added to the Amendment's scope goals specific to one of its managed fisheries. The Northeast multispecies fishery, which is alternatively called the groundfish fishery, consists of 13 species divided into 20 stocks and includes, for example, fish ranging from Atlantic cod and halibut to windowpane flounder, ocean pout, and Atlantic wolffish. See EFH 7849-50; Oceana, Inc. v. Locke, 831 F.Supp.2d 95, 102 (D.D.C. 2011). As part of this fishery's management plan, the Service closed certain areas to fishing gear capable of catching groundfish. See 76 Fed. Reg. 35408 (June 17, 2011). These \"groundfish closures\" thus serve to protect a segment of the fish stock by limiting its exposure to fishers. See Conservation Law Found., 37 F.Supp.3d at 240. Given the spatial overlap between existing groundfish closures and proposed new or modified habitat closures, the Council decided to consider revisions to both categories in conjunction. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 35408. Unlike its deep-sea-corals addition, this one stuck., The results in the Gulf of Maine are a mixed catch from the pure-conservation standpoint adopted by CLF. The Gulf is broken down into three sub-regions. In the Eastern Gulf of Maine, the proposed Amendment closed grounds that were previously open to all mobile bottom-tending gear. See EFH 6207, 6218. The region ultimately closed, however, is smaller than other alternatives considered by the Council. Id. In the Central Gulf of Maine, the Council largely left intact the existing boundaries of regulated waters, making minor modifications. See EFH 6222. It is *88in the Western Gulf of Maine that CLF directs most of its fire. There, the Council opted to redraw the eastern boundary of the largest closure so that a few hundred square nautical miles previously closed to fishing became accessible, which amounts to about a 25% reduction in protected area in that sub-region. See EFH 6241; 83 Fed. Reg. at 15246. On net, after accounting for both the closures and opening of grounds to fishing, the Amendment decreased the size of geographic fishing closures relative to the status quo. See ECF No. 25, Attach. 1 (Pl. Mot.) at 3., With the Council's task complete, and following the statutorily prescribed route to approval, the Habitat Amendment moved upstream to the Service. As required by law, the Agency immediately put out the proposed Amendment in the Federal Register for comment. See 82 Fed. Reg. at 46750. After reviewing the comments and analyzing the Amendment for its consistency with applicable statutes, the Service approved the portions of the Amendment that managed fisheries in the Gulf of Maine. See ECF No. 1 (Compl.), Attach. 1 (Record of Decision) at 2. Unrelated to this action, it disapproved two portions of the Amendment in the other areas within the Council's jurisdiction. Id. It then promulgated a final rule putting the approved portions of the Amendment into effect. See 83 Fed. Reg. at 15240., CLF takes issue with this final approval. It believes that the Service's endorsement of the measures in the Gulf of Maine amounts to a dereliction of its conservation duties. Specifically, Plaintiff thinks that the Agency was wrong to conclude that the measures adopted comply with the MSA's directive to protect essential fish habitat. It also believes that the range of alternatives analyzed by the Council falls short of NEPA's procedural demands. Both parties have now filed Motions for Summary Judgment and presented the Court with a voluminous administrative record. Having reviewed this record, the Court is primed to make its decision., Challenges under both the MSA and NEPA proceed under the Administrative Procedure Act's familiar \"arbitrary and capricious\" standard of review. See 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(1) ; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Because of the limited role federal courts play in reviewing such administrative decisions, the typical Federal Rule 56 summary-judgment standard does not apply to the parties' dueling Motions. See Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F.Supp.2d 76, 89-90 (D.D.C. 2006). Instead, in APA and MSA cases, \"the function of the district court is to determine whether or not ... the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.\" Id. (internal citations omitted). Summary judgment thus serves as the mechanism for deciding, as a matter of law, whether an agency action is supported by the administrative record and is otherwise consistent with the APA standard of review. See Bloch v. Powell, 227 F.Supp.2d 25, 31 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Richards v. INS, 554 F.2d 1173, 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1977) )., The APA requires courts to \"hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions\" that are \"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.\" 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Under this \"narrow\" standard of review - which appropriately encourages courts to defer to the agency's expertise, see Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) - an agency is required to \"examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation *89for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.\" Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, courts \"have held it an abuse of discretion for [an agency] to act if there is no evidence to support the decision or if the decision was based on an improper understanding of the law.\" Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 596 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010). Put another way, the Court's role is only to \"consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.\" Am. Oceans Campaign, 183 F.Supp.2d at 4 (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) )., It is not enough, then, that the court would have come to a different conclusion from the agency. See Oceana, 24 F.Supp.3d at 58 (citing Steel Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 27 F.3d 642, 646 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The reviewing court \"does not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency,\" id., nor does it \"disturb the decision of an agency that has examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] ... a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.\" Ams. for Safe Access v. DEA, 706 F.3d 438, 449 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A decision that is not fully explained, moreover, may be upheld \"if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned.\" Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974). It is only these \"certain minimal standards of rationality\" to which a reviewing court holds an agency. See Nat'l Envtl. Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803, 810 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc) )., At bottom, this case is about whether the Council went overboard in weighing economic objectives against conservation goals. Two federal statutes - the MSA and NEPA - serve as the bedrock of Plaintiff's challenge, although the APA provides the avenue for judicial review. See ECF No. 17 (Am. Compl.), ¶¶ 69-129; 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(1). The Court starts with the MSA issues and ends with a shorter analysis of those under NEPA.","caseName":"Conservation Law Found. v. Ross","caseNameFull":"CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION v. Wilbur ROSS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce","citation":["374 F. Supp. 3d 77"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7335388,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 18-1105 (JEB)","docket_id":64323875,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:40:37.130009Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:20:34.239490Z","score":{"bm25":59.521175}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7253308,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:55:35.448073Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:20:34.259324Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nA. MSA Claim\nAs noted, the Court embarks on its journey with Plaintiff's MSA claim. Getting a handle on this Act, however, is no mere *90day sail. A fair amount of rigging therefore precedes the full airing of CLF's challenge.\n1. Threshold Issues\nIn order to set up the analytical framework that guides it","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7253308],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4995858/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"Mary Louise Miller Wagstaff of Wag-staff Law Office PA, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Largo, FL; Ashley J. McCorvey Myers, Past Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Jacksonville, FL; Matthew B. Capstraw, Past Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Longwood, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Ellen H. Sloyer, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner., Robin J. Scher, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and Amy L. Cosentino, Green-acres, FL, Responding with comments.","caseName":"In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"In re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE","citation":["126 So. 3d 228","38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 837","2013 WL 6014354","2013 Fla. LEXIS 2475"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4995858,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-11-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC12-1205","docket_id":60236344,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:17:10.948745Z","date_created":"2021-08-21T06:22:45.448715Z","score":{"bm25":55.583042}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4806538,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:52:30.423040Z","date_created":"2021-08-21T06:22:45.471415Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nThis matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.\nPreviously in this case, on petition by the Family Law Rules Committee (Committee), the Court adopted amendments to rules 12.010 (Scope, Purpose, and Title); 12.070 (Process); 12.080 (Service of Pleadings and Filin","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4806538],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5044173/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"Elizabeth Ann Blackburn, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Revis & Blackburn, P.A., Daytona Beach, FL; Mary Louise Miller Wagstaff, Past Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Wagstaff Law Office, P.A., Largo, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and Ellen H. Sloyer, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.","caseName":"In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"In re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE","citation":["154 So. 3d 301"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5044173,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-12-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC14-236","docket_id":60294020,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:29:12.747826Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:04:37.442578Z","score":{"bm25":54.427814}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4858020,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:09:16.608357Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:04:37.465375Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nThe Family Law Rules Committee (Committee) has filed its regular-cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.1 The Committee proposes new rules 12.012 (Minimization of Sensitive Information) and 12.364 (Social Investigations). It also proposes amendments to rules 12.070 (Process); 12.200 (Case Management and Pretrial Conferences); 12.363 (Evaluation ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4858020],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10617647/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure - Forms","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10617647,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC2024-0003","docket_id":70639983,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-26T15:03:50.119524Z","date_created":"2025-06-26T15:03:50.070203Z","score":{"bm25":54.240948}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/2453936","id":11084235,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/26/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure_-_forms.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:41:12.756308Z","date_created":"2025-06-26T15:03:50.072208Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"895ffb1782b723df7b3198df106022cedd760c52","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                             ____________\n\n                          No. SC2024-0003\n                            ____________\n\n IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES\n               OF PROCEDURE – FORMS.\n\n                           June 26, 2025\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n     The Florida Bar’s Family Law Rules Committee has filed a\n\nreport proposing amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of\n\nProcedure Forms 12.900(a) (Disclosure from Nonlawyer), 12.900(b)\n\n(Noti","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11084235],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5061205/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"Ashley J. McCorvey Myers, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Jacksonville, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Ellen H. Sloyer, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.","caseName":"In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"In re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE","citation":["95 So. 3d 126","2012 Fla. LEXIS 2657","2012 WL 2849216"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5061205,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-07-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC12-1205","docket_id":60311148,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:33:43.120582Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T03:13:51.353135Z","score":{"bm25":52.5281}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4876453,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:17:10.210812Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T03:13:51.367837Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nThe Florida Bar’s Family Law Rules Committee (Committee) has filed a “fast-track” out-of-cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, which implement new legislation created by chapter 2012-153, section 3, Laws of Florida. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(e). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.\nThe Committee proposes amendments to rules 12","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4876453],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1637669/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"Jack A. Moring, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Crystal River, FL, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.","caseName":"In Re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"In Re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE","citation":["27 So. 3d 650","2010 WL 308120"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":1637669,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-01-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC09-1822","docket_id":1664828,"judge":"Quince, Pariente, Lewis, Canady, Polston, Labarga, Perry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T05:05:35.615363Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T18:31:02.548103Z","score":{"bm25":49.63134}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":1637669,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T10:32:38.380546Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:59:31.150134Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"9dc2229223c472b84b10d3d0dd1ede19e7364eec","snippet":"\n27 So.3d 650 (2010)\nIn re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE.\nNo. SC09-1822.\nSupreme Court of Florida.\nJanuary 28, 2010.\nJack A. Moring, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Crystal River, FL, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.\nPER CURIAM.\nThe Family Law Rules Committee has filed ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1637669],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4392837/in-re-amendments-to-rule-regulating-the-florida-bar-4-119-and-florida/","attorney":"Judge Laurel Moore Lee, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Tampa, Florida; William J. Schifino, Jr., President, The Florida Bar, Tampa, Florida; Michael J. Higer, President-elect, The Florida Bar, Miami, Florida; Michelle R. Suskauer, President-elect Desígnate, West Palm Beach, Florida; and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Lori S. Holcomb, Director, Division of Ethics and Consumer Protection, Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, and Krys Godwin, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner, Robert J. Merlin of Robert J. Merlin, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida; Judge Christine Greider, Chair, Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court, Naples, Florida; Judge Rodney Smith, Chair, Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy, Miami, Florida; Susan C. Marvin, Chief, Alternative Dispute Resolution Center, Tallahassee, Florida; and Edward G. Rubinoff of Kut-ner, Rubinoff & Moss, P.A., Coconut Grove, Florida, Responding with Comments","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.19 and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.745 (Collaborative Law Process)","caseNameFull":"In RE: AMENDMENTS TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR 4-1.19 and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.745 (Collaborative Law Process)","citation":["218 So. 3d 440","2017 WL 2210620","2017 Fla. LEXIS 1080"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4392837,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-05-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC16-1685","docket_id":6063845,"judge":"Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Canady, Polston, Lawson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:31:55.567638Z","date_created":"2017-05-19T16:09:37.371323Z","score":{"bm25":47.55725}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2548984],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-1685.pdf","id":4170090,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/05/18/in_re_amendments_to_rule_regulating_the_florida_bar_4-1.19_and_florida.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:46:23.271717Z","date_created":"2017-05-19T16:09:37.377185Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a719c9d3a4369a341f43fda634cae208a97a26e7","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM.\n \n\n  This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules) and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (Family Law Rules), pertaining to the collaborative law process in family law cases. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, §§ 2(a), 15, Fla. Const.\n \n\n  BACKGROUND\n \n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4170090],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4993978/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure-form/","attorney":"John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, and Matthew Burns Capstraw, Chair, Long-wood, FL, for Petitioner.","caseName":"In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of ProCedure-Form 12.996(d)","caseNameFull":"IN RE AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE-FORM 12.996(d)","citation":["121 So. 3d 505","2013 WL 3333012"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4993978,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-07-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC12-618","docket_id":60234440,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:16:42.485454Z","date_created":"2021-08-21T04:22:49.630301Z","score":{"bm25":46.025097}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4804492,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:51:32.204163Z","date_created":"2021-08-21T04:22:49.646506Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nPreviously in this case, the Court adopted new form 12.996(d), Florida Addendum to Income Withholding Order. In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure—Form 12.996(d), 94 So.3d 558 (Fla.2012).1 This new form is intended to supplement a federally approved income withholding form, “Income Withholding for Support,” OMB 0970-0154, in order to comply with ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4804492],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6623537/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rules-of-juvenile-procedure-florida-family/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, and Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6623537,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC22-1","docket_id":63591314,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:29:11.633180Z","date_created":"2022-07-14T15:01:46.884063Z","score":{"bm25":46.02418}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/843199","id":6499895,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/14/in_re_amendments_to_florida_rules_of_juvenile_procedure_florida_family.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:13:00.422157Z","date_created":"2022-07-14T15:01:46.884958Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"41efdb16e710f1ecc4d88da8e054f1cfea33b307","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                            ____________\n\n                            No. SC22-1\n                            ____________\n\n   IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE\n PROCEDURE, FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE,\n  AND FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW\n                      FORMS.\n\n                           July 14, 2022\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n     This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed\n\namendments to the Florida Rules of Juven","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6499895],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4805110/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure - Forms 12.985 (a)-(g) (Collaborative Law Process)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4805110,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-11-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC19-1032","docket_id":18620268,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:28:33.720356Z","date_created":"2020-11-12T16:02:18.973389Z","score":{"bm25":45.772766}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/687930","id":4585457,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/11/12/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure_-_forms_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:31:56.522145Z","date_created":"2020-11-12T16:02:18.976953Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d417fdad964c23db2ee70441f359966823461fa0","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                                   ____________\n\n                                  No. SC19-1032\n                                  ____________\n\n\n IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF\n    PROCEDURE—FORMS 12.985(a)-(g) (COLLABORATIVE LAW\n                       PROCESS).\n\n                               October 15, 2020\n                            CORRECTED OPINION\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n      This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed ne","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4585457],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4796681/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure - Forms 12.985 (a)-(g) (Collaborative Law Process)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4796681,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-10-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC19-1032","docket_id":18539373,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:26:20.165393Z","date_created":"2020-10-15T15:03:45.268617Z","score":{"bm25":45.708485}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/681715","id":4577028,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/10/15/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure_-_forms.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:26:28.780976Z","date_created":"2020-10-15T15:03:45.279573Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7a705b598d70a1876486b6463b47b41957a3b25b","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                                   ____________\n\n                                  No. SC19-1032\n                                  ____________\n\n\n IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF\n    PROCEDURE—FORMS 12.985(a)-(g) (COLLABORATIVE LAW\n                       PROCESS).\n\n                                  October 15, 2020\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n      This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed new Florida\n\nFamily Law Rules of Procedure Fo","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4577028],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4424477/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-appellate-procedure/","attorney":"Landis Vernon Curry III, Chair, and Kristin A. Norse, Past Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, Tampa, Florida; and John F. Harkness, Executive Director, and Heather Savage Telfer, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner, Honorable Cory J. Ciklin, Chief Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal, -West Palm Beach, Florida; Honorable L. Clayton Roberts, Chief Judge, First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, Florida; and Cassandra Snapp of Law Offices of Mark L. Horwitz, Orlando, Florida, Responding with Comments","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure","caseNameFull":"In RE: AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE","citation":["225 So. 3d 223","42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 794","2017 Fla. LEXIS 1824","42 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 794"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4424477,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-09-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC16-1377","docket_id":6148796,"judge":"Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Canady, Polston, Lawson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-17T20:15:40.314963Z","date_created":"2017-09-07T15:08:42.735732Z","score":{"bm25":44.768505}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-1377.pdf","id":4201730,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/09/07/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_rules_of_appellate_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:08:06.759167Z","date_created":"2017-09-07T15:08:42.742329Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"67bbfae2326c5230bdce865f9e0e1edb7387714e","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM.\n \n\n  This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(f).\n \n\n  BACKGROUND\n \n\n  The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee (Committee) has filed an out-of-cycle report proposing ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4201730],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7819368/amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"Tod Aronovitz, President, The Florida Bar, Miami, FL; Miles A. McGrane, III, President-elect, The Florida Bar, Coral Gables, Florida; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL; an'd Michael P. Walsh, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, West Palm Beach, FL, and The Honorable George S. Reynolds, III, Circuit Judge, Member, Family Law Rules Committee, Quincy, FL, for Petitioner.","caseName":"Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE","citation":["853 So. 2d 303","28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 627","2003 Fla. LEXIS 1163","2003 WL 21543753"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7819368,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2003-07-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC03-60","docket_id":64824701,"judge":"Anstead, Bell, Cantero, Lewis, Pariente, Quince, Wells","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T15:52:28.234902Z","date_created":"2022-07-30T20:36:52.628394Z","score":{"bm25":44.42333}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7761068,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T13:30:36.020417Z","date_created":"2022-07-30T20:36:52.641348Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nWe have for consideration the biennial report of proposed rule changes filed by The Florida Bar’s Family Law Rules Committee (Rules Committee), in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(4). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.\nBACKGROUND\nThe Rules Committee proposes amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 12.20","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7761068],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2686840/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-o/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2686840,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-01-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC12-2030","docket_id":401131,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:51:06.954736Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T09:10:38.350261Z","score":{"bm25":43.947403}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1102373,1614688,1712553,1767185,1768178,1783735,1859454],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc12-2030.pdf","id":2686840,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/01/16/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:01:47.439213Z","date_created":"2014-07-31T21:16:28.121270Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6efdba43d0579625cb0d6e25b375660cc85e9d34","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                                  ____________\n\n                                  No. SC12-2007\n                                  ____________\n\n\n    IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL\n                    ADMINISTRATION.\n\n                                  ____________\n\n                                  No. SC12-2030\n                                  ____________\n\n\n IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF\n                     PROCEDUR","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2686840],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2762444/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-o/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"","citation":["154 So. 3d 301","39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 774","2014 Fla. LEXIS 3779","2014 WL 7212609"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2762444,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-12-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC14-236","docket_id":2616693,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:31:55.422192Z","date_created":"2014-12-18T17:18:09.263973Z","score":{"bm25":43.661457}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1097183,1683687],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc14-236.pdf","id":2762444,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/12/18/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:57:23.127798Z","date_created":"2014-12-18T17:03:09.268121Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7692d91cfb61c94a26391802a238fe0117366b52","snippet":"         Supreme Court of Florida\n                                  ____________\n\n                                  No. SC14-236\n                                  ____________\n\n\n IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF\n                     PROCEDURE.\n\n                               [December 18, 2014]\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n      The Family Law Rules Committee (Committee) has filed its regular-cycle\n\nreport proposing amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.1 The\n\nCommittee pr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2762444],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10328395/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rules-of-civil-procedure/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10328395,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-02-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC2024-0774","docket_id":69616609,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-02-06T16:06:11.741813Z","date_created":"2025-02-06T16:06:11.688900Z","score":{"bm25":42.986145}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/2446888","id":10794983,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/02/06/in_re_amendments_to_florida_rules_of_civil_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:05:21.786979Z","date_created":"2025-02-06T16:06:11.691245Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"28e94cc1b82e0172ea1a4c7d11cd007c66094e3b","snippet":"        Supreme Court of Florida\n                           ____________\n\n                        No. SC2024-0774\n                          ____________\n\n    IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL\n                   PROCEDURE.\n\n                        February 6, 2025\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n     The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed a\n\nreport proposing amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure\n\n1.070 (Process), 1.410 (Subpoena), 1.550 (Executions and Final\n\nProcess), 1.560 (Di","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10794983],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}