Certiorari relief is only granted if a lower court has violated a “clearly established principle of law,” understood by Florida courts to mean binding and on-target caselaw governing that lower court’s decision. This Article examines the clearly-established-law requirement, finding that it obstructs Florida appellate courts from developing caselaw for issues of first impression and those issues first decided outside the reviewing district. This requirement often results in appellate courts denying relief without analyzing cases’ merits and being bound to other districts’ precedent.
This Article discusses existing responses to the requirement, examining how Florida courts have avoided it by looking to constitutional provisions, statutes, and rules; expanding upon current caselaw; and certifying questions to higher courts. The Article then proposes an alternate solution stemming from prospective adjudication—”sunbursting”—which allows courts to rule on legal issues without applying those rules to parties. Under this approach, courts would both maintain the clearly-established-law requirement and provide for caselaw development in a two-step process: (1) determine whether a lower court violated established law (granting or denying relief); and (2) analyze and rule on each issue raised.