Using De Novo as Standard of Review for Appeal of Final Judgment Florida

Raise Your Standards: A Practitioner's Guide to the Effective Use of Appellate Standards of Review

Rachel Canfield Appellate Do

Litigants are often tempted to accost the claim of a legal result, without reference to the applicable appellate standard of review. Even so, litigators should offset place and alert the presiding courtroom to the applicative standard of review because information technology defines the scope of the appellate court's inquiry, the level of deference to be paid to the lower tribunal's ruling,¹ and controls the outcome of the issue or appeal.

Many litigators unknowingly lose ground before they accept even filed their observe of appeal. Trial courts are well aware of the lens through which a ruling will exist reviewed and their decisions are tailored to comply with the standard of review long before whatsoever appeal is taken. An constructive practitioner contemplates which standard of review will apply to each legal issue in a instance considering doing and so helps 1) identify whether an issue is worth pursuing; 2) ensure that an issue is preserved for appeal; iii) predict the way a trial court will rule on the issue; and four) and shed light on how to persuasively frame the issue during each phase of litigation. Without a business firm agreement of the standards of review, a litigant volition be hard-pressed to succeed on a motion or properly develop the record for success on appeal.

Categories of Trial Courtroom Rulings
Effective utilise of a standard of review is informed by the rationale behind the occasion that gave rise to the need for the standard. The standards are a judicial construct, designed to efficiently and judiciously identify and correct harmful legal error.

Essentially, all trial courtroom rulings autumn into one of 3 categories: 1) conclusions of law; 2) findings of fact; and 3) discretionary decisions.² Considering trial court judges preside alone and observe the presentation of prove, the law presumes that a trial court is in a better suited position to oversee case management, weigh show, resolve factual disputes, and make credibility determinations in the cases over which they preside,ⁱⁱⁱ but their decisions are not binding and do not have precedential effect over other courts or cases.

Conversely, an appellate court's primary tasks are to review the actions of a lower tribunal for "harmful" or "reversible" legal error, interpret the police force, establish uniform precedent and ensure uniform application of the law throughout the state, and administer justice.^four An appellate court does not reweigh evidence, resolve factual disputes, or brand credibility determinations because appellate judges do non have the do good of observing the presentation of evidence at trial. Instead, they review the cold, difficult record on appeal, which generally consists of pleadings, court filings, transcripts, and copies of exhibits.⁵ Because Florida's appellate judges sit in panels of three or more than,^six the private ability of an appellate court judge is more limited than that of a trial courtroom estimate. This limitation reduces the potential for error and allows for appellate court decisions to take binding, precedential effect over lower courts.

The Human relationship Between Trial Court Rulings and Appellate Standards of Review
There are only three categories of trial court rulings and just a handful of the most common standards of review that apply in civil proceedings.⁷ Each category confers upon the trial courtroom a lesser or higher degree of judgment. The level of deference paid by the appellate court is in straight proportion to the level of judgment conferred upon the trial court. Despite a body of well-settled law on each standard, the applicative standard is not always credible or clear.^viiiThere may be many iterations of just i standard. Information technology may exist difficult to distinguish between a question of law and a question of fact, or the nature of the trial court ruling may exist mixed. Equally a effect, at that place are times when it is advisable for the parties to disagree as to the applicative standard, or even one iteration of the standard, and to present persuasive statement to the courtroom every bit to why one standard or another should utilize.^ix To ignore an unfavorable standard will only crusade the political party to lose the opportunity to persuade the courtroom to employ a more favorable standard, or to provide the court with an analysis of the legal issue through the appropriate lens.¹⁰

As discussed more fully below, to successfully navigate through murky legal issues in which the standard is unclear, information technology is critically of import that a litigant empathize the theory backside each category and standard to effectively identify and apply the correct standard.

The Most Mutual Appellate Standards of Review in Ceremonious Cases
In civil cases, an appellate result may be reviewed nether one of the post-obit almost common appellate standards of review (or any combination thereof): 1) de novo; ii) competent, substantial evidence; three) abuse of discretion; iv) harmless error; or 5) the Tipsy Coachman doctrine.¹¹

Standards of review serve a number of important functions. Aside from their analytical value, they take practical value also. Florida law requires that practitioners include in their appellate briefs "[a]rgument with regard to each issue, with citation to appropriate authorities, and including the applicative appellate standard of review."¹² The Florida Supreme Courtroom has underscored the importance and office of the standards of review in appellate proceedings:

"An appellate courtroom's get-go obligation when reviewing a lower court'due south decision is to articulate its standard of review — i.e., its criterion for assessing the validity of the lower courtroom'due south ruling. This requirement serves 2 functions: information technology informs the parties of the extent of the review and, near of import, reminds the appellate court of the limitations placed on its own authority past the appellate process…. Application of the incorrect standard of review may tilt the appellate playing field and irreparably prejudice a party'south rights."^thirteen

As a outcome, a litigant increases the chance for success by clearly stating the standard and weaving it through each statement. To do then, a litigant must be able to correctly identify the applicable standard of review.

• Conclusions of Police are Subject area to De Novo Review —Conclusions of law are field of study to the furthest-reaching standard of review for an appellate court, "de novo" review, which is a Latin expression that means "of new" or "from the beginning," and expands the appellate court'southward review of the issue as if it was seeing it for the first fourth dimension. A question of law does not place a trial court in a superior vantage signal, as the question does not turn on the evaluation of show.^xiv An appellate court is equally as capable to return a conclusion on the question of police.

Most ordinarily, de novo review applies in cases involving questions of law arising from undisputed facts because the legal issue presented by the evidence is essentially a question of law.^fifteen A primary example is that Florida's appellate courts review a ruling on a motility to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo.¹⁶ The ruling is limited to the 4 corners of the complaint and attachments, if any, and must presume all facts alleged in the complaint are true.¹⁷design, this type of movement tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, but does non determine problems of ultimate fact or whether the claim will prevail. A trial court will not grant such a move in haste because information technology must determine that information technology cannot exist said that the complaint states a cause of action,^xviii and Florida police force favors liberal subpoena of pleadings,^nineteen and then that controversies may be decided on the merits.²⁰

A few other obvious examples of issues to which de novo review applies are appellate issues pertaining to a trial court's estimation of a contract.²¹ This is because the terms of the contract and awarding of the police force remain the same, regardless of the facts or evidence presented. For the aforementioned reason, de novo review applies to cases involving statutory estimation,²² the grant of a dispositive motion such as motion for judgment every bit a matter of constabulary or directed verdict, or movement for summary judgment,²³ or governing a punitive amercement amendment.²⁴ In such instances, the focus of the research is whether there was a genuine or disputed issue of fact and whether the trial court applied the correct dominion of police force, but does not require an actual resolution on the disputed event of fact, if any.²⁵ Evidentiary questions that do not require a factual inquiry may also be reviewed under this standard.²⁶

De novo review presents a rare opportunity for an appellant to have a second chance at redemption on the precise issue raised below and is the well-nigh favorable standard for an appellant seeking reversal. An appellant should frame the ruling on appeal every bit a mistake of police, which presents the path of least resistance for reversal.

Yet, information technology strikes fright into the heart of an appellee who seeks an affirmance. An appellee should vigorously defend the trial court's ruling and consider whether a colorable argument to advocate for a more stringent standard of review exists.

• Findings of Fact are Reviewed for Competent, Substantial Evidence —A trial court's findings of fact are cloaked in a presumption of correctness and reviewed for whether they are supported past competent substantial evidence.²⁷ A ruling will non be disturbed when there is tape evidence to allow a rational trier of fact to reach the conclusion that was drawn. Because the assignment of the weight given to the bear witness or credibility of the witnesses rests soundly inside the province of the finder of fact, an appellate court does non make up one's mind whether to accept or reject bear witness, as a matter of law.²⁸

An appellant will need to bear witness that there is no credible evidence to support the complained-of factual finding, and must convince the court that the findings lack any rational connection to the record or that the weight of the evidence renders a finding wrong. Such circumstances are rare. This lenient standard pays substantial deference to the lower courtroom'due south ruling.²⁹

• Mixed Conclusions of Police force and Findings of Fact —Sure legal issues present both a question of law and a question of fact. In such instances, an appellate court will review a ruling that involves a mixed question of police force and fact nether both de novo review and for competent substantial evidence or an corruption of discretion.³⁰ The trial courtroom'southward ruling on a question of law is subject to de novo review. Meanwhile its ruling on a question of fact is reviewed for competent substantial evidence.

Bug pertaining to contract interpretation often involve mixed questions of police force and fact. For example, a trial court's ruling on a movement to compel arbitration presents mixed questions of law and fact.³¹ The trial court must resolve questions of fact as to whether at that place is the existence of a valid mediation agreement, an arbitrable result, and whether the issue was waived.³² Withal, the ultimate ruling under this research also necessarily involves the interpretation of a contract, which presents a matter of police.³³ For the same reasons, review of a trial court's ruling equally to an honour of attorneys' fees and costs is also subject to this mixed standard.³⁴

An appellee should either persuade the appellate court that the ruling is bailiwick to a more stringent standard of review, or, alternatively, demonstrate why the trial court'southward ruling on the matter of law was correct and rebut the existence or absenteeism of show asserted by appellant.

• Discretionary Decisions Are Reviewed for an Abuse of Discretion —The corruption of discretion standard is the most deferential standard with respect to the trial court's ruling. "In reviewing a true discretionary deed, the appellate court must fully recognize the superior vantage point of the trial judge and should utilize the 'reasonableness' test to determine whether the trial gauge abused his discretion."³⁵ This is an incredibly difficult standard to overcome, and the discretionary ruling of the trial gauge should exist disturbed but when the conclusion fails to satisfy this test of reasonableness, which provides: "If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion."³⁶ Under this standard, a trial court's ruling will be upheld unless the "judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable …discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court."³⁷

Discretionary decisions usually involve decisions regarding procedure, prove, or equity, and resultantly, the corruption of discretion standard applies largely to procedural matters, rulings on the admissibility of evidence, and matters sounding in equity. Procedural vehicles for relief are reviewed nether this standard. For case, when reviewing a trial court's grant of a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness exam to determine whether the trial guess committed an corruption of discretion.³⁸ Orders awarding attorneys' fees as a sanction for raising frivolous claims or defenses are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.³⁹ An appellate court will employ an abuse of discretion standard when information technology reviews a trial court ruling regarding jury option⁴⁰ or the admissibility of bear witness.⁴¹

Appellate courts look at dissimilar circumstances, such every bit poor decision-making processes, consideration of factors that should non accept been considered, or the failure to consider facts that should have been considered,⁴² in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion. Discretion by the trial gauge to decide a affair in a unlike way than an appellate judge is not enough to demonstrate an corruption of discretion.⁴³

This standard is the most difficult for an appellant to overcome. An appellant should carefully consider whether to raise issues subject to this standard or advocate for a unlike standard when advisable. This standard is the well-nigh favorable for an appellee, and an appellee should be sure to highlight this standard.

Judicial Efficiency and Standards to Affirm in the Face of Error
Not all legal error is created equal. Florida'southward courts recognize that a political party is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.⁴⁴ As such, an appellate courtroom evaluates on a case-by-case basis whether information technology should correct or reject to correct an error in the underlying proceedings.⁴⁵ Even if information technology determines that the trial courtroom erred in reaching a determination of law, finding of fact, or discretionary decision, if it concludes the error was harmless⁴⁶ or the right result was reached, an appellate court may however affirm the trial court's erroneous ruling. The rationale is elementary and centers on judicial efficiency: It would be inefficient and impractical to permit reversal in every case in which error tin can be constitute. Nearly every case contains error, so the law distinguishes between those errors that are "harmless⁴⁷ and those that are harmful or reversible.

• Harmless Error —In Florida, an appellate courtroom may decline to correct legal error and affirm a trial court'due south erroneous ruling when the mistake is harmless. Practitioners have often confused this standard considering the statutory language and black-letter law articulate ii differing iterations for the same test. Florida's legislature has the ability to enact statutes, and as such, enacted Florida's harmless error statute. The statutory framework provides that "[due north]o judgment shall be prepare aside or revered, or new trial granted past any court of the state in any cause…unless…after an examination of the entire instance it shall announced that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice."⁴⁸

Yet, the Florida Supreme Court retains the "inherent authorisation to determine when an error is harmless and the assay to be used in making the determination."⁴⁹ The court has rejected the "miscarriage of justice" standard, and instead requires "the beneficiary of the error [has the burden] to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mistake complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the mistake contributed to the confidence."⁵⁰ The Florida Supreme Courtroom examination prevails in both criminal and civil appeals and is the standard practical to determine whether an error is harmless.

From a practical standpoint, an appellate court volition not waste matter limited judicial time and resources to reverse an erroneous trial court decision that did non contribute to the verdict. Harmless mistake makes it more than difficult for an appellant to obtain a reversal, considering it acts equally an additional filter. Just stated, fifty-fifty if an appellant is able to demonstrate fault in a trial court ruling the appellant will likely also need to demonstrate that the error was not harmless. In dissimilarity, an appellee volition want to emphasize that whatever error was harmless.

• The Tipsy Coachman Doctrine —The Tipsy Coachman doctrine get-go appeared in the 1879 opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court in Lee 5. Porter, 63 Ga. 345 (1879), which states that if the trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if at that place is any basis that would support the judgment in the record. Nearly eight decades after, Florida adopted this doctrine in Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So. 2d 494 (1963). The "fundamental to the application of this doctrine of appellate efficiency is that there must have been support for the culling theory or principle of law in the record before the trial courtroom."⁵¹ Thus, if a trial decision is correct for the incorrect reason, it may exist affirmed on entreatment when the theory or legal principle is supported by the record.⁵²

Decision
Litigators should familiarize themselves with the interplay betwixt the categories of trial court rulings and standards of appellate review. The relationships betwixt each serve as valuable guideposts when evaluating legal issues, preserving an outcome for appeal and developing the record, predicting a ruling, or framing an issue on appeal. Constructive practitioners are familiar with and contemplate which standard of review will utilize to each legal issue to maximize the potential for success.

^ane This article serves as a primer for the everyday litigator on the most common appellate standards of review in civil cases. Practitioners are duty bound to "disembalm to a tribunal a legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly agin to the position of the customer and non disclosed by opposing counsel." Rule Reg. Fla. Bar iv-3.3. Zilch in this article should be construed to advise that whatever practitioner is absolved of that duty. Further, this article does non address the dissimilar standards of review that may apply to legal problems in criminal, family police, administrative matters, or the tests applied to writ petitions in original jurisdiction proceedings.

ⁱⁱ Harvey J. Sepler, Appellate Standards of Review, Florida Appellate Practice CLE 6, six.2 (10th ed. 2017).

^three Sure technological advances beg the question whether standards of review may ane day change as new technological advances provide appellate courts with the ability to see the evidence from the aforementioned vantage betoken as the trial court.

⁴ Encounter Bruno five. State, 807 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2001); Urban center of Coral Gables v. Land ex rel. Hassenteufel, 38 Then. 2d 467 (Fla. 1948); Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n five. Sikes, 590 And then. second 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see likewise Philip J. Padavano, Florida Appellate Practice seven:ane (2017 ed.).

^five Run across Jacob 5. Henderson, 840 So. second 1167 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); Axelrod v. Dep't of Children and Family Servs., 799 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Monroe 5. State, 191 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 2016).

⁶ The Florida Supreme Court consists of vii justices: v are required for a quorum and four are required for a majority. Fla. Const. art. 5, §3(a). Each of the five commune courts of appeal consist of at least 3 judges and at to the lowest degree 3 judges are required to consider each case. Fla. Const. fine art. V, §4(a).

⁷ There are numerous standards of review, likewise equally iterations of each of those standards. However, this article acts every bit a primer and discusses merely those that are the well-nigh common to provide a foundational understanding of the relationship between trial court rulings and appellate standards of review.

^viii The U.South. Supreme Court has recognized the "vexatious nature" of distinguishing betwixt a question of fact and question of law. See, due east.chiliad., Pullman-Standard 5. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 288 (1982); Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.Due south. 665, 671 (1944).

^ix Encounter Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (seventh Cir. 1988); Sierra Fria Corp. v. Donald J. Evans, P.C., 127 F.3d 175, 181 (1st Cir. 1997); Tolbert 5. Page, 182 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1999).

^ten Michael R. Fontham, et al., Persuasive Written and Oral Advancement 274 (2002). "Hiding the standard is a prescription for defeat, because the court volition surely find and utilise it."

^eleven This article does not address cardinal error, which is an exception to the preservation requirement is rarely found in civil proceedings.

¹² Practitioners should be mindful that Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(b)(5) expressly requires inclusion of the standard of review in appellate briefs.

¹³ North Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. five. State, 866 So. 2nd 612, 626 (Fla. 2003); see as well Fla. R. App. P. 9.120(b)(5).

¹⁴ Florida Dept. of Revenue v. New Bounding main Escape Cruises, Ltd., 894 And so. 2d 954, 957 (Fla. 2005); Florida Power & Light Co. 5. Hayes, 122 So. 3d 408, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

^xv Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Cnty., 460 And so. 2nd 879 (Fla. 1984); Bradley 5. Waldrop, 611 Then. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

¹⁶ Bell v. Indian River Mem'fifty Hosp., 778 And so. 2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. fourth DCA 2001).

¹⁷ United Auto Ins. Co. 5. Law Offices of Michael I. Libman, 46 So. 3d 1101, 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

¹⁸ Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061 ("Orders granting or denying dismissal for forum non conveniens are subject to…an abuse-of-discretion standard."); see likewise Kinney Organisation, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996).

¹⁹ Rulings on the amendment of pleadings are subject field to an corruption of discretion standard. Encounter Carib Ocean Aircraft, Inc. five. Armas 54 Then. second 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

²⁰ See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190.

²¹ Hayes, 122 So. 3d 408, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Reilly v. Reilly, 94 So. 3d 693, 697 (Fla. quaternary DCA 2012).

²² New Body of water Escape Cruises, Ltd., 894 So. 2d at 957.

²³ Bell, 778 So. 2d at 1032.

²⁴ Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 And then. 3d 741, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing In Estate of Despain five. Avante Grouping, Inc., 900 So. 2d 637, 642-44 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)).

²⁵ Sepler, Appellate Standards of Review 6.iv (citing Moore 5. Morris, 475 So. second 666 (Fla. 1985)).

²⁶ Id. (citing Burkey 5. State, 922 So. 2nd 1033, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)).

²⁷ Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Gov't five. Metropolis of Sarasota, 48 Then. 3d 755 (Fla. 2010); Liner five. Workers Temporary Staffing, Inc., 990 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2008).

²⁸ Evans 5. Thornton, 898 So. 2nd 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Southwin, Inc. v. Verde, 806 And then. 2nd 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

²⁹ Country Trust Realty, 207 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); City of Cocoa v. Leffler, 803 Then. 2d 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

³⁰ Berlin five. Pecora, 968 So. 2nd 47, 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Jockey Guild, Inc. v. Stern, 408 So. 2nd 854, 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)).

³¹ Kendall Imports, LLC v. Diaz, 215 So. 3d 95, 98-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), reh'g den. (Mar. 30, 2017), review den., No. SC17-792, 2017 WL 4161247 (Fla. Sept. 20, 2017).

³² Id.

³³ Id.

³⁴ Webber for Keitel v. D'Agostino, No. 4D17-3007, 2018 WL 3301892, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citing Klinow v. Island Court at Boca W. Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 64 So. 3d 177, 180 (Fla. quaternary DCA 2011)).

³⁵ Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980).

³⁶ Id.

³⁷ Trease v. Country, 768 So. 2d 1050, 1053 due north.ii (Fla. 2000).

³⁸ Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 And then. second 490, 497-98 (Fla. 1999).

³⁹ Jean-Pierre v. Glaberman, 192 And so. second 613, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Lago v. Kame Pattern, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)).

⁴⁰ Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 Then. second 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); and Barrios 5. Locastro, 166 Then. 3d 863 (Fla. quaternary DCA 2015), review den., 182 And so. 3d 633 (Fla. 2015).

⁴¹ See Knight v. Land, 15 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). A ruling on the admissibility of evidence is distinguishable from application of the evidence code — an alleged fault in applying the rules of evidence or on whether certain evidence constitutes hearsay volition be reviewed de novo because both are questions of law. Likewise, a decision to certify a class is subject to this standard because a determination of whether certification is advisable typically involves multifactorial analysis that requires certain discretionary calls by the trial court. See Sosa v. Safeway Premium Finance Co., 73 And then. 3d 91 (Fla. 2011) (certification does not involve the merits of the cause of activity); Adiel 5. Electronic Financial Systems, Inc., 513 And so. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Morgan five. Coats, 33 And so. 3d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

⁴² Steven Alan Childress & Martha S. Davis, 1 Federal Standards of Review, notation 27, 4.01(3) at 4, 12-15 (4th ed. 2010).

⁴³ Id.

⁴⁴ U.S. v. Lutwak, 344 U.S. 604, 619 (1953); see by and large Brunell v. State, 456 So. second 1324, 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Vedder 5. State, 313 So. 2d 49, l (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Farnell v. State, 214 Then. 2d 753, 759 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1968).

⁴⁵ Special v. West Boca Medical Center, 160 And so. 3d 1251, 1257 (Fla. 2014). "The test acts in a manner so as to conserve judicial resource while protecting the integrity of the procedure."

⁴⁶ Encounter Id. at 1256-57; State v. Diguilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

⁴⁷ Special, 160 So. 3d at 1251, 1256-57.

⁴⁸ Fla. Stat. §59.041(emphasis added).

⁴⁹ Goodwin v. Land, 751 And then. 2d 537, 546 (Fla. 1999).

⁵⁰ Special, 160 So. 3d at 1256 ("[T]his test is consistent with the harmless error dominion codification in department 59.041 because it "focus[es] on the outcome of the mistake on the trier-of-fact," "strikes the proper balance between the parties," and "strikes the advisable rest between the need for finality and the integrity of the judicial process."); come across, due east.chiliad., Diguilio, 491 So. 2d at 1135.

⁵¹ Robertson five. State, 829 So. second 901, 906-907 (Fla. 2002).

⁵² James A. Herb & Jay L. Kauffman, Tales of the Tipsy Coachman: Existence Right for the Wrong Reason — The Tipsy Coachman is Alive and Well and Living in Florida, 81 Fla. Bar J. 36 (December. 2007).

RACHEL A. CANFIELD is a judicial police clerk for Judge Thomas Logue of the Third District Courtroom of Appeal. She has practiced in Miami and served as a judicial police clerk for Justice James E.C. Perry and judicial intern for Justice Jorge Labarga of the Florida Supreme Court. Peter Abraham, a pupil at St. Thomas Academy School of Law, assisted with writing this article.

This column is submitted on behalf of the Appellate Practise Department, Sarah Lahlou-Amine, chair, and Thomas Seider, editor.

dustinprighorky84.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/raise-your-standards-a-practitioners-guide-to-the-effective-use-of-appellate-standards-of-review/

Share this post