Most litigants are likely to come up against a decision of a district court that does not fall within the very narrow category of non-final decisions subject to appeal listed in rule 9.130, but results in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by a subsequent appeal at the end of the dispute. In such an order, the certiorari provides a mechanism for obtaining immediate review. In order to prove the basis of a document, the plaintiff must prove that the order deviates from the essential requirements of the law, causes irreparable harm, and cannot be remedied on appeal.10 However, the courts have repeatedly warned that certiorari will not be used to extend jurisdiction beyond the parameters set out in rule 9.130 or to circumvent the serious disadvantage of piecemeal review.11 Certiorari is completely arbitrary in this context. As one court explained, some state court systems in the United States use the same terminology, but others use the term „writ of certiorari” instead of writ of certiorari to refer to discretionary review of a lower court`s judgment. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania uses only the terms allocatur (informal) and „appeal allowance” (formal) for the same trial. A handful of states do not have interlocutory courts of appeal; In most of them, their supreme courts operate under a system of mandatory review in which the Supreme Court must accept all appeals in order to preserve the loser`s traditional right to appeal (except in criminal cases where the accused has been acquitted). Virginia has an intermediate court of appeals, but operates under discretionary control, except in family and administrative matters. The mandatory review remains in place in all states where the death penalty applies; In these states, a death sentence is automatically appealed to the state`s highest court. Section 10 of the Supreme Court Rules lists the criteria for granting certiorari and states that the decision to grant or reject certiorari is discretionary. A decision rejecting certiorari does not necessarily mean that the higher court agrees with the judgment of the lower court; Instead, it simply means that fewer than four judges have ruled that the circumstances of the lower court`s decision warrant review by the Supreme Court. Court decisions granting or refusing certiorari are issued as mere statements of the measures taken, without any justification being given for the refusal.
Some suggested that the Court should state the reasons for its refusal. However, in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950), the Court stated that, for practical reasons (such as the Court`s authorization to exercise its functions), Congress had authorized review of the Court`s affairs to remain at the Court`s discretion. The initial procedures, described in Rule 9.100 Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100, describe the initial jurisdiction of the courts to issue common law orders. The rule identifies writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, habeas corpus and all writs necessary for the full exercise of jurisdiction. Each of these documents merits individual discussion, but some general principles are universally applicable. An initial action is initiated by filing an application directly with the Court of Appeal with the corresponding filing fee, rather than filing a notice of appeal with the lower court. Fla. R.
App. S. 9,100 (b). In many cases, this shortens the time it takes to prepare the documents necessary for the request for reconsideration, as some extraordinary written requests must be made within 30 days of notification of the contested decision.2 As the Registrar does not provide minutes in the written proceedings, parties who wish to attach documents must attach an attachment to the application. Fla. R. App. pp. 9.100(i) and 9.220.