Opinion ID: 1851021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Facial Analysis of Article V, Section 4(b)(1)

Text: In addition, even a superficial examination of the explicit provisions of article V demonstrates that the drafters clearly distinguished the jurisdiction of the district courts under article V, section 4(b)(1) to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right from other appeals. [10] Specifically, for example, the drafters limited appeals in administrative matters and in circuit court to appeals as prescribed by general law. See section 4(b)(2) (administrative appeals) [11] and section 5(b) (circuit court appellate jurisdiction). [12] There is no such limitation on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the district courts of appeal. The drafters knew what the phrase as prescribed by general law meant and did not use it as a limitation of a citizen's right to appeal to the district courts of appeal or the Supreme Court. Instead, they used that phrase intentionally to permit the legislature to provide for appeals in administrative proceedings and in the circuit courts. Further, after providing for appeals to the district courts as a matter of right from final judgments and orders of trial courts, the drafters provided that the Supreme Court could decide by rule what interlocutory orders could be appealed to the district courts. A plain reading of these provisions reveals that the constitution explicitly provides for appeals as a matter of right from final judgments and orders, with the Supreme Court deciding what interlocutory orders may be appealed. Otherwise, we would be left with the anomalous situation of the Supreme Court providing for interlocutory appeals in cases where the legislature may have said there shall be no appeal at all from the final outcome.