CONTACT INFORMATION

Cox Law Office
156 East Bloomingdale Ave.,
Brandon, 33511
Phone: (813) 685 8600

Email: WebQuestion@coxlawplc.com

Rule 9.330. Rehearing; Clarification; Certification; Written Opinion

RULE 9.330. REHEARING; CLARIFICATION; CERTIFICATION; WRITTEN OPINION

(a)
Time for Filing; Contents; Response.

(1)
Time for Filing. A motion for rehearing, clarification,
certification, or issuance of a written opinion may be filed within 15
days of an order or decision of the court or within such other time
set by the court.
(2)
Contents.
(A)
Motion for Rehearing. 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 order or decision. The motion shall not present issues not
previously raised in the proceeding.
(B)
Motion for Clarification. A motion for
clarification shall state with particularity the points of law or fact in
the court’s order or decision that, in the opinion of the movant, are
in need of clarification.
(C)
Motion for Certification. A motion for
certification shall set forth the case(s) that expressly and directly
conflicts with the order or decision or set forth the issue or question
to be certified as one of great public importance.
(D)
Motion for Written Opinion. A motion for
written opinion shall set forth the reasons that the party believes
that a written opinion would provide:
(i)
a legitimate basis for supreme court
review;
(ii)
an explanation for an apparent deviation
from prior precedent; or
(iii) guidance to the parties or lower tribunal
when:
a.
the issue decided is also present in
other cases pending before the court or another district court of
appeal;

b.
the issue decided is expected to
recur in future cases;
c.
there are conflicting decisions on
the issue from lower tribunals;
d.
the issue decided is one of first
impression; or
e.
the issue arises in a case in which
the court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction.
(3)
Response. A response may be served within 15 days
of service of the motion.
(b)
Limitation. A party shall not file more than 1 motion for
rehearing, clarification, certification, or written opinion with respect
to a particular order or decision of the court. All motions filed under
this rule with respect to a particular order or decision must be
combined in a single document.
(c)
Exception; Bond Validation Proceedings. A motion for
rehearing or for clarification of an order or decision in proceedings
for the validation of bonds or certificates of indebtedness as
provided by rule 9.030(a)(1)(B)(i) may be filed within 10 days of an
order or decision or within such other time set by the court. A
response may be served within 10 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 of Appeal
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
without opinion;

(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 of appeal decision without opinion.
(e)
Application. This rule applies only to appellate orders or
decisions that adjudicate, resolve, or otherwise dispose of an
appeal, original proceeding, or motion for appellate attorneys’ fees.
The rule is not meant to limit the court’s inherent authority to
reconsider nonfinal appellate orders and decisions.
Committee Notes
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).
2018 Amendment. This rule has been amended to broaden
the grounds upon which a party may permissibly seek a written
opinion following the issuance of a per curiam affirmance.
Subdivision (a)(2)(D)(iii)e. is intended to address situations in which
a specific district court of appeal has exclusive subject matter
jurisdiction over a type of case by operation of law, such as the First
District Court of Appeal regarding workers’ compensation matters.

Source: Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective September 4, 2025.

View the official rules: Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure — The Florida Bar (PDF)

Browse all Florida Appellate Rules

BROWSE LEGAL TOPICS

Discovery Dispute?

Facing a discovery dispute or tight deadlines under Rule 1.280? Cox Law, PLLC helps Florida litigants navigate proportionality, initial disclosures, and protective orders with precision.

Contact us today to discuss your case and develop a discovery strategy that protects your interests.

(813) 685-8600

WebQuestion@coxlawplc.com

How Can We Help?

Reach out — we respond quickly.

Send an Emailwebquestion@coxlawplc.com Call Us Now(813) 685-8600 Contact PageFill out our contact form
Scroll to Top