RULE 9.030. JURISDICTION OF COURTS
(a)
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.
(1)
Appeal Jurisdiction.
(A)
The supreme court shall review, by appeal:
(i)
final orders of courts imposing sentences
of death; and1
(ii)
decisions of district courts of appeal
declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state
constitution.2
(B)
If provided by general law, the supreme court
shall review:
(i)
by appeal final orders entered in
proceedings for the validation of bonds or certificates of
indebtedness;3 and
(ii)
action of statewide agencies relating to
rates or service of utilities providing electric, gas, or telephone
service.4
(2)
Discretionary Jurisdiction. The discretionary
jurisdiction of the supreme court may be sought to review:
(A)
decisions of district courts of appeal that:5
(i)
expressly declare valid a state statute;
(ii)
expressly construe a provision of the
state or federal constitution;
(iii) expressly affect a class of constitutional
or state officers;
(iv)
expressly and directly conflict with a
decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court
on the same question of law;
(v)
pass upon a question certified to be of
great public importance; or
(vi)
are certified to be in direct conflict with
decisions of other district courts of appeal;
(B)
orders and judgments of trial courts certified
by the district court of appeal in which the appeal is pending to
require immediate resolution by the supreme court, and:6
(i)
to be of great public importance; or
(ii)
to have a great effect on the proper
administration of justice; or
(C)
questions of law certified by the Supreme
Court of the United States or a United States court of appeals that
are determinative of the cause of action and for which there is no
controlling precedent of the Supreme Court of Florida.7
(3)
Original Jurisdiction. The supreme court may issue
writs of prohibition to courts and all writs necessary to the complete
exercise of its jurisdiction, and may issue writs of mandamus and
quo warranto to state officers and state agencies. The supreme
court or any justice may issue writs of habeas corpus returnable
before the supreme court or any justice, a district court of appeal or
any judge thereof, or any circuit judge.8
(b)
Jurisdiction of District Courts of Appeal.
(1)
Appeal Jurisdiction. District courts of appeal shall
review, by appeal:
(A)
final orders of trial courts,1, 2 not directly
reviewable by the supreme court or a circuit court;
(B)
nonfinal orders as prescribed by rule 9.130;9
and
(C)
administrative action if provided by general
law.2
(2)
Certiorari Jurisdiction.8 The certiorari jurisdiction of
district courts of appeal may be sought to review:
(A)
nonfinal orders of lower tribunals other than
as prescribed by rule 9.130; or
(B)
final orders of circuit courts acting in their
review capacity.
(3)
Original Jurisdiction.8 District courts of appeal may
issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and common
law certiorari, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of
the courts’ jurisdiction; or any judge thereof may issue writs of
habeas corpus returnable before the court or any judge thereof, or
before any circuit judge within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court.
(4)
Discretionary Review.10 District courts of appeal, in
their discretion, may review by appeal final orders of the county
court, otherwise appealable to the circuit court by general law, that
the county court has certified to involve a question that may have
statewide application and that:
(A)
is of great public importance; or
(B)
will affect the uniform administration of
justice.
(c)
Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts.
(1)
Appeal Jurisdiction. The circuit courts shall review,
by appeal:
(A)
final orders of lower tribunals as provided by
general law;1, 2
(B)
nonfinal orders of lower tribunals as provided
by general law; and
(C)
administrative action if provided by general
law.
(2)
Certiorari Jurisdiction.8 The certiorari jurisdiction of
circuit courts may be sought to review nonfinal orders of lower
tribunals other than as prescribed by rule 9.130.
(3)
Original Jurisdiction.8 Circuit courts may issue writs
of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, common law certiorari,
and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise
of the courts’ jurisdiction.
1. 9.140.
2. 9.110.
3. 9.110(i).
4. 9.110.
5. 9.120.
6. 9.125.
7. 9.150.
8. 9.100.
9. 9.130.
10. 9.160.
Committee Notes
1977 Amendment. This rule replaces former rules 2.1(a)(5)
and 2.2(a)(4). It sets forth the jurisdiction of the supreme court,
district courts of appeal, and that portion of the jurisdiction of the
circuit courts to which these rules apply. It paraphrases sections
3(b), 4(b), and, in relevant part, 5(b) of article V of the Florida
Constitution. The items stating the certiorari jurisdiction of the
supreme court and district courts of appeal refer to the
constitutional jurisdiction popularly known as the “constitutional
certiorari” jurisdiction of the supreme court and “common law
certiorari” jurisdiction of the district courts of appeal. This rule is
not intended to affect the substantive law governing the jurisdiction
of any court and should not be considered as authority for the
resolution of disputes concerning any court’s jurisdiction. Its
purpose is to provide a tool of reference to the practitioner so that
ready reference may be made to the specific procedural rule or rules
governing a particular proceeding. Footnote references have been
made to the rule or rules governing proceedings invoking the listed
areas of jurisdiction.
This rule does not set forth the basis for the issuance of
advisory opinions by the supreme court to the governor because the
power to advise rests with the justices under article IV, section 1(c),
Florida Constitution, and not the supreme court as a body. The
procedure governing requests from the governor for advice are set
forth in rule 9.500.
The advisory committee considered and rejected as unwise a
proposal to permit the chief judge of each judicial circuit to modify
the applicability of these rules to that particular circuit. These rules
may be modified in a particular case, of course, by an agreed joint
motion of the parties granted by the court so long as the change
does not affect jurisdiction.
1980 Amendment. Subdivision (a) of this rule has been
extensively revised to reflect the constitutional modifications in the
supreme court’s jurisdiction as approved by the electorate on March
11, 1980. See art. V, § 3(b), Fla. Const. (1980). The impetus for
these modifications was a burgeoning caseload and the attendant
need to make more efficient use of limited appellate resources.
Consistent with this purpose, revised subdivision (a) limits the
supreme court’s appellate, discretionary, and original jurisdiction to
cases that substantially affect the law of the state. The district
courts of appeal will constitute the courts of last resort for the vast
majority of litigants under amended article V.
Subdivision (a)(1)(A)(i) retains the mandatory appellate
jurisdiction of the supreme court to review final orders of trial
courts imposing death sentences.
Subdivision (a)(1)(A)(ii) has been substantively changed in
accordance with amended article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida
Constitution (1980), to eliminate the court’s mandatory appellate
review of final orders of trial courts and decisions of district courts
of appeal initially and directly passing on the validity of a state
statute or a federal statute or treaty, or construing a provision of
the state or federal constitution. Mandatory supreme court review
under this subdivision is now limited to district court decisions
“declaring invalid” a state statute or a provision of the state
constitution. Jurisdiction to review final orders of trial courts in all
instances enumerated in former subdivision (a)(1)(A)(ii) now reposes
in the appropriate district court of appeal.
Revised subdivision (a)(1)(B) enumerates the 2 classes of cases
that the supreme court may review if provided by general law. See
art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. (1980). Eliminated from the amended
article V and rule is the legislative authority, never exercised, to
require supreme court review of trial court orders imposing
sentences of life imprisonment.
Subdivision (a)(1)(B)(i), pertaining to bond validation
proceedings, replaces former subdivision (a)(1)(B)(ii). Its phraseology
remains unchanged. Enabling legislation already exists for supreme
court review of bond validation proceedings. See § 75.08, Fla. Stat.
(1979).
Subdivision (a)(1)(B)(ii) is new. See art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const.
(1980). Under the earlier constitutional scheme, the supreme court
was vested with certiorari jurisdiction (which in practice was always
exercised) to review orders of “commissions established by general
law having statewide jurisdiction,” including orders of the Florida
Public Service Commission. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. (1968);
§ 350.641, Fla. Stat. (1979). This jurisdiction has been abolished. In
its stead, amended article V limits the supreme court’s review of
Public Service Commission orders to those “relating to rates or
services of utilities providing electric, gas, or telephone service.”
Enabling legislation will be required to effectuate this jurisdiction.
Review of Public Service Commission orders other than those
relating to electric, gas, or utility cases now reposes in the
appropriate district court of appeal. See art. V, § 4(b)(2), Fla. Const.
(1968); Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(C); and § 120.68(2), Fla. Stat.
(1979).
Subdivision (a)(2) has been substantially revised in accordance
with amended article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1980),
to restrict the scope of review under the supreme court’s
discretionary jurisdiction. Under the earlier constitution, this
jurisdiction was exercised by writ of certiorari. Constitutional
certiorari is abolished under amended article V. Reflecting this
change, revised subdivision (a)(2) of this rule substitutes the phrase
“discretionary jurisdiction” for “certiorari jurisdiction” in the
predecessor rule. This discretionary jurisdiction is restricted,
moreover, to 6 designated categories of district court decisions,
discussed below. Amended article V eliminates the supreme court’s
discretionary power to review “any interlocutory order passing upon
a matter which upon final judgment would be directly appealable to
the Supreme Court” as reflected in subdivision (a)(2)(B) of the
predecessor rule. It also eliminates the supreme court’s certiorari
review of “commissions established by general law having statewide
jurisdiction” as reflected in subdivision (a)(2)(C) of the predecessor
rule.
Subdivision (a)(2)(A) specifies the 6 categories of district court
decisions reviewable by the supreme court under its discretionary
jurisdiction.
Subdivisions (a)(2)(A)(i) and (a)(2)(A)(ii) are new and pertain to
matters formerly reviewable under the court’s mandatory appellate
jurisdiction. Under former rule 9.030(a)(1)(A)(ii), the supreme
court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction could be invoked if a lower
tribunal “inherently” declared a statute valid. See Harrell’s Candy
Kitchen, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth., 111 So. 2d 439 (Fla.
1959). The 1980 amendments to article V and this subdivision
require a district court to “expressly declare” a state statute valid
before the supreme court’s discretionary jurisdiction may be
invoked.
Subdivision (a)(2)(A)(iii), pertaining to supreme court review of
district court decisions affecting a class of constitutional or state
officers, has been renumbered. It tracks the language of the
predecessor constitution and rule, with the addition of the
restrictive word “expressly” found in amended article V.
Subdivision (a)(2)(A)(iv) represents the most radical change in
the supreme court’s discretionary jurisdiction. The predecessor
article V vested the supreme court with power to review district
court decisions “in direct conflict with a decision of any district
court of appeal or of the Supreme Court on the same point of law.”
These cases comprised the overwhelming bulk of the court’s
caseload and gave rise to an intricate body of case law interpreting
the requirements for discretionary conflict review. With the
enunciation of the “record proper rule” in Foley v. Weaver Drugs,
Inc., 177 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1965), the supreme court extended its
discretionary review in instances of discernible conflict to district
court decisions affirming without opinion the orders of trial courts.
Amended article V abolishes the Foley doctrine by requiring an
“express” as well as a “direct” conflict of district court decisions as a
prerequisite to supreme court review. The new article also
terminates supreme court jurisdiction over purely intradistrict
conflicts, the resolution of which is addressed in rule 9.331.
Subdivision (a)(2)(A)(v) substitutes the phrase “great public
importance” for “great public interest” in the predecessor
constitution and rule. The change was to recognize the fact that
some legal issues may have “great public importance,” but may not
be sufficiently known by the public to have “great public interest.”
Subdivision (a)(2)(A)(vi) is new and tracks the language of
article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution (1980).
Subdivisions (a)(2)(B) and (a)(2)(C) are new. See art. V, §§
3(b)(5), (3)(b)(6), Fla. Const. (1980). Certification procedures under
these subdivisions are addressed in rule 9.125 and rule 9.150,
respectively.
Subdivision (a)(3) is identical to the predecessor article V and
rule, except it limits the issuance of writs of prohibition to “courts”
rather than “courts and commissions” and limits the issuance of
writs of mandamus and quo warranto to “state agencies” rather
than “agencies.”
1984 Amendment. Subdivision (b)(4) was added to implement
legislation authorizing district courts of appeal discretion to review
by appeal orders and judgments of county courts certified to be of
great public importance.
1992 Amendment. Subdivision (c)(1)(B) was amended to
reflect correctly that the appellate jurisdiction of circuit courts
extended to all non-final orders of lower tribunals as prescribed by
rule 9.130, and not only those defined in subdivision (a)(3) of that
rule.
Subdivision (c)(1)(C) was amended to reflect the jurisdiction
conferred on circuit courts by article V, section 5, Florida
Constitution, which provides that “[t]hey shall have the power of
direct review of administrative action prescribed by general law.”
2000 Amendment. Subdivision (c)(1)(B) was amended to
reflect that the appellate jurisdiction of circuit courts is prescribed
by general law and not by rule 9.130, as clarified in Blore v. Fierro,
636 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1994).
Source: Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective September 4, 2025.
View the official rules: Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure — The Florida Bar (PDF)