FLW Mobile - For easier navigation on your mobile phone! |
|||
![]() Research Associates, Inc. |
|
||
LOG IN CONTACT Toll-free: 800-351-0917 E-mail us Submit Opinions PLACE AN ORDER Print Editions Online Editions Bound Volumes 2/24-Hour Online Access OUR PUBLICATIONS Florida Law Weekly FLW Supplement FLW Federal Collected Cases RESEARCH Cross Citations Week In Review Rule Revisions Review Granted Current Issue Index Civil Section Criminal Section 2025 Cumulative Index Civil Section Criminal Section Public Reprimands Florida Statutes Helpful Links |
More current. Less expensive.
Our e-alert service lets you know when new cases have been posted, for any of our publications. No charge.
RECENT RELEASES - FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
RULES OF GENERAL PRACTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION--AMENDMENT. The Court adopted the following amendments to Rule 2.540 (Requests for Accommodations by Persons with Disabilities): Subdivision (c)(1) was amended "to clarify that all notices of court proceedings, whether an order issued by a judge or a notice filed by an attorney or party,' which includes but is not limited to a summons,' must contain the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) notice language." The Court also changed the requirement that the notice language appear in either Times New Roman or Courier font to a requirement that the notice now appear in either Bookman Old Style or Arial font. Finally, the notice language was updated to refer to an "ADA Coordinator" instead of a specific individual's name. The Court declined to adopt a proposed amendment to rule 2.530 (Communications Technology), choosing instead to refer the matter to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee with a request that the committee "consider proposing an amendment regarding the use of audio-visual communication technology during a deposition in existing Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310 (Depositions on Oral Examination)."
CRIMINAL LAW--SENTENCING--CORRECTION--ILLEGAL SENTENCE. The Court held that rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne. Because such claims are subject to harmless error review, they cannot be raised as claims of "illegal sentences." In reaching its conclusion, the Court receded from its contrary holding in Plott v. State.
|