Loading…
2 verbatim mandatory provisions from 04-27-b.
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
• In those cases in which Petitions for Appointment of a Guardian are filed for more than one member of the same family, a separate petition shall be required for each prospective ward and a separate guardianship file shall be opened for each prospective ward. 2. • Nothing in this order shall preclude or prevent the presiding judge of the guardianship division from coordinating hearings in such separately filed cases so that issues common to such cases within a single family can be heard and resolved in a single hearing.
In those cases in which Petitions for Appointment of a Guardian are filed for more than one member of the same family, a separate petition shall be required for each prospective ward and a separate guardianship file shall be opened for each prospective ward. 2.
Reviewer note: Document sha256: e048ddbca8a70c3afcf336de2a95e442a672a82ea0067e66cd5485b2192ea484 (87883 bytes). BenchPath harvested this circuit itself because no research corpus existed for it. Extraction is conservative: mandatory-language sentences only, so this rule is a faithful subset of the order, never a summary of it. | Scope corrected 2026-08-03: the 18th numbers county-specific orders with -b (Brevard) and -s (Seminole); unsuffixed orders are circuit-wide. This rule was bulk-tagged to one county at harvest; the court's own numbering convention now controls. Text layer cleaned 2026-09-08 (Phase 3a): page markers removed; wording untouched. Verbatim from the order's own text layer, harvested 2026-07-24; whitespace normalised only. No OCR was used. Only sentences containing mandatory language (shall, must, may not, no later than, within N) are reproduced — the full document is in custody and is the controlling text. [moved from the text 2026-09-14] [Corrected 2026-09-26: 1 bulleted sentence had been cut at a semicolon -- a list stem or item published without the rest of its sentence. 1 was removed because the rest of the sentence could not be published whole from the rule's own source (a list item or recital, a page chunk, or a source that is no longer reachable).] [Corrected 2026-09-26 (follow-up): the opening bullet -- the court caption glued to two WHEREAS recitals ending on list item (a) -- was removed once packet 100 removed item (b); recitals state the court's reasons, not a requirement.]
A 2013 standing order requiring attorneys to e-file family-law and civil documents (no paper filings accepted) as the court began compliance with the Supreme Court's e-filing mandate; criminal filing unchanged.
A 2013 standing order requiring attorneys to e-file family-law and civil documents (no paper filings accepted) as the court began compliance with the Supreme Court's e-filing mandate; criminal filing unchanged.