FL. R. App. P. 9.330
1977 Amendment. This rule replaces former rule. 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.
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.
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 postdecision 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.