observed). Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Comm’rs, 794 So.2d 1270 (Fla.2001). DHSMV argues that the circuit judge should have issued an order to show cause and given it an opportunity to respond. Although Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(h) states that “[i]f the petition demonstrates a preliminary basis for relief ... the court may issue an order directing the respondent to show cause,” the second district recently held that “the court must issue an order to show cause as to why relief should .not be granted.” Evergreen Tree Treasurers of Charlotte County, Inc. v. Charlotte County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 810 So.2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (emphasis added); see also Rightler v. Pompano Beach Police and Fireman’s Pension Fund, 467 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (<HOLDING>). Although the circuit court noted no response
holding that a petition for writ of certiorari should be dismissed if there has been an insufficient showing of irreparable harm and should be denied when it is determined that an order did not depart from the essential requirements of law holding that circuit court violated the essential requirements of the law in not issuing an order to show cause after receiving a facially sufficient petition for writ of certiorari holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review holding it is settled that the supreme court may consider questions raised on the first appeal after which the court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari as well as those that were before the court of appeals upon the second appeal after which the court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari internal quotation marks omitted