MONROE COUNTY v. THURMOND STREET PARTNERS LLC (2022)

Denied. See Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So. 2d 195, 199 (Fla. 2003) (“[Second-tier certiorari review is] limited to whether the circuit court (1) afforded procedural due process, and (2) applied the correct law.”); Nader v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712, 723 (Fla. 2012) (“Moreover, certiorari jurisdiction cannot be used to create new law where the decision below recognizes the correct general law and applies the correct law to a new set of facts to which it has not been previously applied.”); Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1093 (Fla. 2010) (“[A] circuit court appellate decision made according to the forms of law and the rules prescribed for rendering it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as applied to facts, is not a departure from the essential requirements of law remediable by certiorari.”) (emphasis omitted); Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Snapp Indus., Inc., 319 So. 3d 739, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (concluding the circuit court applied the correct law despite the county's argument that the circuit court reweighed the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing); City of Miami v. Hervis, 65 So. 3d 1110, 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“[I]t is not the function of this Court on second-tier certiorari to correct error or reweigh the evidence.”).

PER CURIAM.