Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC19-884

____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE 

PROCEDURE 9.120 AND 9.210.

December 3, 2020

PER CURIAM.

The Court has for consideration the supplemental report of The Florida Bar’s 

Appellate Court Rules Committee (Committee) proposing amendments to Florida 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.120 (Discretionary Proceedings to Review 

Decisions of District Courts of Appeal) and 9.210 (Briefs). We have jurisdiction. 

See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

Previously, in In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 

9.120 & 9.210, 284 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 2019), the Court adopted, with modifications, 

amendments to rules 9.120 and 9.210 that establish a procedure for respondents to 

identify cross-review issues in discretionary review cases through the service of a 

“notice of cross-review.” The Court made the following modifications to the 

amendments:
- 2 -

A new subdivision (f) titled “Notices of Cross-Review” is 

added to rule 9.120 (Discretionary Proceedings to Review Decisions 

of District Courts of Appeal). The new subdivision as proposed by 

the Committee would have required a respondent who intends to raise 

cross-review issues in a discretionary review case to serve a notice of 

cross-review within fifteen days of the rendition of this Court’s order 

accepting jurisdiction. However, we have modified new subdivision 

(f) of the rule to require a notice of cross-review to be served within 

five days of the service of a timely filed notice to invoke the Court’s 

discretionary jurisdiction. We also have added a requirement that the 

notice identify the issue(s) the respondent intends to raise on crossreview. We modified the new subdivision because we agree with the 

Committee’s observation in the report that a notice of cross-review 

filed at the jurisdiction determination stage of a discretionary review 

case would be beneficial to the Court in deciding whether it should 

accept jurisdiction in a case in which a basis exists for the Court to 

exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.

Id. at 967.

Following the issuance of In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate 

Procedure 9.120 & 9.210, the Committee moved for rehearing, contending that the 

Court’s modifications place respondents “in a quagmire . . . by having to decide 

whether to raise cross-review issues before they know the particular jurisdictional 

basis and issues petitioners intend to raise and having to do so within just five days 

of the notice to invoke.” The Committee also claimed that the five-day period in 

which to file a notice of cross-review placed respondents at a significant 

disadvantage when a notice to invoke is filed quickly after issuance of a district 

court decision, and placed petitioners at a disadvantage in preparing a jurisdictional 

brief, as they will be unaware of whether any cross-review issues exist until nearly 
- 3 -

half of the ten-day period in rule 9.120(d) to file a jurisdictional brief has expired. 

The Court granted the Committee’s motion, postponed the effective date of the 

amendments, and directed the Committee to file a supplemental report addressing 

the modified rule amendments.

The Committee has now filed a supplemental report proposing amendments 

to rules 9.120 and 9.210 that dispense altogether with the requirement that a 

respondent serve a notice of cross-review. The proposed amendments require the 

parties to identify in a separate “statement of the issues” section of their 

jurisdictional briefs the issues they intend to raise that are independent of those 

upon which jurisdiction is sought. The Committee did not publish its proposals for 

comment prior to filing them with the Court. After the Committee filed its report, 

the Court published the proposals for comment; no comments were received.

Having considered the Committee’s supplemental report, we hereby adopt 

the amendments to rules 9.120 and 9.210 as proposed by the Committee. The 

amendments to rule 9.120 delete references to the service of a notice of crossreview from subdivision (d) (Briefs on Jurisdiction), as well as language excluding 

certified questions of great public importance from the jurisdictional brief 

requirements. Rule 9.120(f) (Notices of Cross-Review) is replaced with a new 

subdivision titled “Additional Issues on Review or Cross-Review,” under which a 

party who intends to raise issues in this Court independent of those upon which 
- 4 -

jurisdiction is based is required to identify the issues in the statement of the issues 

section of his or her jurisdictional brief.

Rule 9.210(a) (Generally) is amended to permit the filing of a cross-reply 

brief in cases where a cross-appeal has been filed or a respondent identifies crossreview issues in his or her brief on jurisdiction. New subdivision (f), titled 

“Contents of Briefs on Jurisdiction,” is added to rule 9.210. The new subdivision 

identifies the required contents of a jurisdictional brief. It also requires that the 

parties identify in the statement of issues section of their jurisdictional briefs the 

issues they intend to raise if review is granted that are independent of those upon 

which the Court’s jurisdiction is invoked.

Accordingly, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.120 and 9.210 are 

amended as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by 

underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments 

shall become effective on January 1, 2021, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, 

and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
- 5 -

Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

Hon. Stephanie Williams Ray, Chair, and Thomas D. Hall, Past Chair, Appellate 

Court Rules Committee, Tallahassee, Florida; and Joshua E. Doyle, Executive 

Director, and Krys Godwin, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner
- 6 -

Appendix

RULE 9.120. DISCRETIONARY PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW 

DECISIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL

(a)-(c) [NO CHANGE]

(d) Briefs on Jurisdiction. The petitioner’s brief, with the argument 

section limited solely to the issue of the supreme court’s jurisdiction, and 

accompanied by an appendix containing only a conformed copy of the decision of 

the district court of appeal, shall be served within 10 days of the filing of the notice 

to invoke the court’s discretionary jurisdiction or the service of a notice of crossreview under subdivision (f) of this rule, if one is filed. The respondent’s brief on 

jurisdiction shall be served within 30 days after service of petitioner’s brief. 

Formal requirements for both briefs are specified in rule 9.210. No reply brief shall 

be permitted. If jurisdiction is invoked under rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) (certifications 

of questions of great public importance by the district courts of appeal to the 

supreme court), no briefs on jurisdiction shall be filed.

(e) [NO CHANGE]

(f) Notices of Cross-Review. Within 5 days of the service of a timely 

filed notice to invoke the court’s discretionary jurisdiction, a respondent shall serve 

a notice of cross-review if the respondent intends to file a cross-initial brief raising 

any issues independent of those upon which the petitioner sought review. The 

notice shall identify the issue(s) the respondent intends to raise on crossreview.Additional Issues on Review or Cross-Review. As specified in rule 9.210, 

if the petitioner or respondent intends to raise issues for review in the supreme 

court independent of those on which jurisdiction is based, the petitioner or 

respondent must identify those issues in the statement of the issues included in 

their brief on jurisdiction. 

(g) [NO CHANGE]

Committee Notes

[NO CHANGE]
- 7 -

RULE 9.210. BRIEFS

(a) Generally. In addition to briefs on jurisdiction under rule 

9.120(d)Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the only briefs permitted to be filed 

by the parties in any 1 proceeding are the initial brief, the answer brief, and a reply 

brief, and a cross-reply brief. A cross-reply brief is permitted if a cross-appeal has 

been filed or if the respondent identifies issues on cross-review in its brief on 

jurisdiction in the supreme court. All briefs required by these rules shall be 

prepared as follows:

(1)-(4) [NO CHANGE]

(5) The page limits for briefs shall be as follows:

(A) [NO CHANGE]

(B) Except as provided in subdivisions (a)(5)(C) and 

(a)(5)(D) of this rule, the initial and answer briefs shall not exceed 50 pages and 

the reply brief shall not exceed 15 pages. If a cross-appeal is filed or a notice of 

cross-review is filedthe respondent identifies issues on cross-review in its brief on 

jurisdiction in the supreme court, the appellee or respondent’s answer/cross-initial 

brief shall not exceed 85 pages, and the appellant or petitioner’s reply/cross-answer 

brief shall not exceed 50 pages, not more than 15 of which shall be devoted to 

argument replying to the answer portion of the appellee or respondent’s 

answer/cross-initial brief. Cross-reply briefs shall not exceed 15 pages.

(C)-(D) [NO CHANGE]

(E) The cover sheet, the tables of contents and citations, the 

certificates of service and compliance, and the signature block for the brief’s 

author shall be excluded from the page limits in subdivisions (a)(5)(A)–(a)(5)(D). 

For briefs on jurisdiction, the statement of the issues also shall be excluded from 

the page limit in subdivision (a)(5)(A). All pages not excluded from the 

computation shall be consecutively numbered. The court may permit longer briefs.
- 8 -

(6) [NO CHANGE]

(b) [NO CHANGE]

(c) Contents of Answer Brief. The answer brief shall be prepared in the 

same manner as the initial brief, provided that the statement of the case and of the 

facts may be omitted, if the corresponding section of the initial brief is deemed 

satisfactory. If a cross-appeal has been filed or a notice of cross-review has been 

filedthe respondent identifies issues on cross-review in its brief on jurisdiction in 

the supreme court, the answer brief shall include the issues presented in the crossappeal or cross-review, and argument in support of those issues. 

(d)-(e) [NO CHANGE]

(f) Contents of Briefs on Jurisdiction. Briefs on jurisdiction, filed 

pursuant to rule 9.120, shall contain a statement of the issues, a statement of the 

case and facts, the argument, the conclusion, a table of contents, a table of 

citations, a certificate of service, and, for computer-generated briefs, shall also 

include a certificate of compliance in the same manner as provided in subdivisions 

(a) and (b) of this rule. In the statement of the issues, petitioner shall identify any 

issues independent of those on which jurisdiction is invoked that petitioner intends 

to raise if the court grants review. Respondent, in its statement of the issues, shall 

clearly identify any affirmative issues, independent of those on which jurisdiction 

is invoked and independent of those raised by petitioner in its statement of the 

issues, that respondent intends to raise on cross-review if the court grants review.

(g) Times for Service of Briefs. The times for serving jurisdiction and 

initial briefs are prescribed by rules 9.110, 9.120, 9.130, and 9.140. Unless 

otherwise required, the answer brief shall be served within 30 days after service of 

the initial brief; the reply brief, if any, shall be served within 30 days after service 

of the answer brief; and the cross-reply brief, if any, shall be served within 30 days 

thereafter. In any appeal or cross-appeal, if more than 1 initial or answer brief is 

authorized, the responsive brief shall be served within 30 days after the last initial 

or answer brief was served. If the last authorized initial or answer brief is not 

served, the responsive brief shall be served within 30 days after the last authorized 

initial or answer brief could have been timely served.
- 9 -

(gh) Citations. Counsel are requested to use the uniform citation system 

prescribed by rule 9.800.

Committee Notes

[NO CHANGE]

Court Commentary

[NO CHANGE]