You are here:Home/Florida/Rule 9.330 Rehearing; Clarification; Certification
(a) Time for Filing; Contents; Response. A motion for rehearing, clarification, certification, or issuance of a written opinion may be filed within 15 days of an order or within such other time set by the court. A motion for rehearing shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that, in the opinion of the movant, the court has overlooked or misapprehended in its decision, and shall not present issues not previously raised in the proceeding. A motion for clarification shall state with particularity the points of law or fact in the court’s decision that, in the opinion of the movant, are in need of clarification. A response may be served within 10 days of service of the motion. When a decision is entered without opinion, and a party believes that a written opinion would provide a legitimate basis for supreme court review, the party may request that the court issue a written opinion. If such a request is made by an attorney, it shall include the following statement:
I express a belief, based upon a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that a written opinion will provide a legitimate basis for supreme court review because (state with specificity the reasons why the supreme court would be likely to grant review if an opinion were written).
(Name of Party)
(address, e-mail address, and phone number)
(Florida Bar number)
(b) Limitation. A party shall not file more than 1 motion for rehearing or for clarification of decision and 1 motion for certification with respect to a particular decision.
(c) Exception; Bond Validation Proceedings. A motion for rehearing or for clarification of a decision in proceedings for the validation of bonds or certificates of indebtedness as provided by rule 9.030(a)(1)(B)(ii) may be filed within 10 days of an order or within such other time set by the court. A reply may be served within 5 days of service of the motion. The mandate shall issue forthwith if a timely motion has not been filed. A timely motion shall receive immediate consideration by the court and, if denied, the mandate shall issue forthwith.
(d) Exception; Review of District Court Decisions. No motion for rehearing or clarification may be filed in the supreme court addressing:
(1) the dismissal of an appeal that attempts to invoke the court’s mandatory jurisdiction under rule 9.030(a)(1)(A)(ii) when the appeal seeks to review a decision of a district court of appeal decision without opinion, or
(2) the grant or denial of a request for the court to exercise its discretion to review a decision described in rule 9.030(a)(2)(A), or
(3) the dismissal of a petition for an extraordinary writ described in rule 9.030(a)(3) when such writ is used to seek review of a district court decision without opinion.
1977 Amendment. This rule replaces former rule 3.14. Rehearing now must be sought by motion, not by petition. The motion must be filed within 15 days of rendition and a response may be served within 10 days of service of the motion. Only 1 motion will be accepted by the clerk. Re-argument of the issues involved in the case is prohibited.
Subdivision (c) provides expedited procedures for issuing a mandate in bond validation cases, in lieu of those prescribed by rule 9.340.
Subdivision (d) makes clear that motions for rehearing or for clarification are not permitted as to any decision of the supreme court granting or denying discretionary review under rule 9.120.
2000 Amendment. The amendment has a dual purpose. By omitting the sentence “The motion shall not re-argue the merits of the court’s order,” the amendment is intended to clarify the permissible scope of motions for rehearing and clarification. Nevertheless, the essential purpose of a motion for rehearing remains the same. It should be utilized to bring to the attention of the court points of law or fact that it has overlooked or misapprehended in its decision, not to express mere disagreement with its resolution of the issues on appeal. The amendment also codifies the decisional law’s prohibition against issues in post-decision motions that have not previously been raised in the proceeding.
2002 Amendment. The addition of the language at the end of subdivision (a) allows a party to request the court to issue a written opinion that would allow review to the supreme court, if the initial decision is issued without opinion. This language is not intended to restrict the ability of parties to seek rehearing or clarification of such decisions on other grounds. 2008 Amendment. Subdivision (d) has been amended to reflect the holding in Jackson v. State, 926 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2006).
2008 Amendment. Subdivision (d) has been amended to reflect the holding in Jackson v. State, 926 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2006).