Background
The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee proposed amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020, governing definitions, and 9.100, governing original proceedings. The Florida Supreme Court published the proposals for comment and received none.
The proposals addressed the definition of “lower tribunal” and clarified who must receive a petition and later-filed documents in original proceedings. They also included related revisions governing access orders and mandamus or prohibition petitions directed to judges or lower tribunals.
The Court’s Holding
The Florida Supreme Court adopted the Committee’s proposed amendments. Amended rule 9.020(e) defines “lower tribunal” as the court, judge, agency, officer, official, board, commission, or body whose order, action, or inaction is the subject of a proceeding under the appellate rules.
Amended rule 9.100 requires a petition seeking review of an order to be served on the person or persons who issued it. An issuing official who must receive the petition but is not named as a respondent generally need not receive later filings unless the official files a notice electing service. The same limitation applies to persons who issue orders granting or excluding press or public access. The amendments also clarify that judges and lower tribunals, as formal parties in mandamus and prohibition proceedings directed to them, must be served with all filed documents.
The amendments take effect October 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m., and a rehearing motion will not alter that effective date.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 9.020 now defines a lower tribunal by whether its order, action, or inaction is the subject of an appellate proceeding.
- An official who issued the challenged order must receive the petition but, when not a respondent, generally receives no later filings unless the official elects continued service.
- Judges and lower tribunals that are formal parties in mandamus or prohibition proceedings must receive every filed document.
Why It Matters
The amendments distinguish between officials who must receive initial notice of an original proceeding and parties entitled to ongoing service. That clarification should help appellate practitioners identify the proper recipients of petitions without automatically serving every later filing on an issuing official who is not a respondent.
The revisions also make clear that different service rules apply when a judge or lower tribunal is a formal party to a mandamus or prohibition proceeding.