Precedent Dilemma: Florida's Intra-District Conflict

Have you ever practiced under a well-worm assumption for so long that you forgot how you formed it in the first place? Yep, me neither. But after I stumbled upon the article "A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-district Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal" in The Florida Bar Journal, I started to second guess some of my most entrenched beliefs about appellate precedent. Kind of like losing all faith in my elementary school education by double-checking simple addition on my phone calculator.

The article dives into the wild world of intra-district conflict in Florida's District Courts of Appeal. You'd think precedent would be the legal world's North Star, but turns out, it's more like a disco ball — pretty to look at but spinning in all directions.

The Clash of the Titans: Older vs. Later

Ah, the age-old debate: Is "older" really "better," or is "later" truly "greater?" No, we're not talking about wine here; we're talking about how Florida's District Courts handle conflicting precedents. You see, some lawyers and judges argue that a district court's three-judge panel is bound by a prior panel opinion until overruled by the court sitting en banc or the Florida Supreme Court. Others believe the later opinion controls when two panel opinions conflict. So, which is it? Let's find out.

A Brief History of Intra-District Conflict

The Florida District Courts of Appeal were created in 1957, with each court having three judges. With every case being heard en banc -- all judges of the district -- there was little room for conflicting opinions within the same district. Then came the '60s and '70s, and much like the music of that era, things started to get a little funky. More judges were added, panels expanded, and suddenly, you had a court where different panels could disagree on the same point of law.

The En Banc Solution... or Not

In 1980, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331 was introduced to formalize en banc proceedings in district courts. This was supposed to be the big, shiny fix to the problem of intra-district conflicts. Now, panels couldn't just overrule each other willy-nilly. But the ghost of Little v. State, 206 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1968), still haunted the halls of justice. According to Little, when two intra-district panel opinions conflict, the decision later in time controls. Great, now we have two sets of rules. Fantastic.

District Court Discord

Fast forward to today, and Florida's district courts are still struggling with the "older is better" vs. "later is greater" dilemma. For example, the First District recently issued two conflicting opinions on the same day — one saying that later decisions control and another saying they don't. Compare Daniel v. State, 271 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)(recognizing that court's reliance on 2016 decision conflicted with an opinion it issued in 2011; court resolved the conflict by holding that “the later decision controls.”) with Wanless v.State, 271 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)(holding “We are of course bound to follow our own decisions unless and until an intervening decision from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, or this court sitting en banc compels otherwise"). It's like the legal equivalent of a split personality. In the Second District, the same back-and-forth has been going on for decades, with cases like Wood v. Fraser, 677 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2dDCA 1996) taking the "older is better" approach, while Collins v. State, 893 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) went the Little way. Come on guys!

Lessons from the Feds

So, what can we learn from our federal cousins over in the Eleventh Circuit? Well, they seem to have it all figured out. In their world, "older is better" almost always wins. If there’s a conflict, you follow the earliest precedent. It’s a system that fosters stability and consistency. In other words, it's what you want from a legal system, not a plotline in a soap opera.

Final Thoughts: The Need for Supreme Court Intervention

The Florida Supreme Court is the only body that can clear up this mess. Until then, we’re stuck with the chaos. As appellate practitioners, it's our job to highlight these conflicts to the courts and hope someone, someday, asks the Supreme Court to decide, once and for all, whether “older is better” or “later is greater.”

While the conflict may be entertaining in a "watching a train wreck" kind of way, it's not so great if you're looking for, you know, a reliable legal system. So, Supreme Court, how about stepping in and playing referee here? Otherwise, we're all just left to fumble around cherry-picking which school of thought furthers the needs of a case at the time. While that may be the bread-and-butter of most litigators, we nerdy appellate lawyers like consistency. Not to be dramatic, but "it depends" as an answer to a legal question is about as satisfying as getting a fruit cup with nothing but cantaloupe.

Reference:

Berman, K. K., Richardson, A., & Scavone, R. Jr. (2023). A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-district Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal. The Florida Bar Journal, 97(1), 14.