Loading…
1 verbatim mandatory provision from 91-42-b.
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
• Request for post judgmental relief in all civil cases will be handled as follows: a. If a request for post judgment relief is filed seeking either modification of support proceedings or enforcement thereof or further supplementary relief, and the Judge signing the most recently entered Order or Judgment is still in the Civil Division, then the new request for post judgmental relief will be assigned to that Judge for handling. This request will be treated as a new filing. b. In the event the Judge who has signed the most recently entered Order or Judgment is no longer in the Civil Division, then the request for post judgmental relief will be treated as a new filing and assigned accordingly.
Request for post judgmental relief in all civil cases will be handled as follows: a. If a request for post judgment relief is filed seeking either modification of support proceedings or enforcement thereof or further supplementary relief, and the Judge signing the most recently entered Order or Judgment is still in the Civil Division, then the new request for post judgmental relief will be assigned to that Judge for handling. This request will be treated as a new filing. b. In the event the Judge who has signed the most recently entered Order or Judgment is no longer in the Civil Division, then the request for post judgmental relief will be treated as a new filing and assigned accordingly.
Reviewer note: Document sha256: 0e2c02cedf56897b1519c17d3a368433d04b799d91045fc1b37cbeb06036efc9 (43741 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. | Set to in_review 2026-07-26: the order's subject looks practitioner-facing but the extracted text captured only recitals or an effective date, not the operative ORDERED section. This is an extraction defect, not a judgement that the order is unimportant — it needs re-extraction before it goes back on the published surface. | Re-extracted 2026-07-26 from the numbered paragraphs following the order's ORDERED clause, replacing a first pass that had captured recitals and the effective date. | 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. Verbatim from the operative section of this order, re-extracted 2026-07-26; whitespace normalised only. [moved from the text 2026-09-14]
9 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-10.
6 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-13.