THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Administrative law -- Public Service Commission -- Electric utilities -- Storm protection plan -- Public interest -- Commission did not err in approving storm protection plans which were submitted by electric utility companies pursuant to section 366.96 -- Discussion of section 366.96 and the administrative rules which were adopted to guide its administration -- Commission was not required to consider the “prudence” of the SPPs in addition to determining whether the plans were in the public interest prior to approving plans -- SPP statute calls for a review of the utilities' SPPs to determine if they are in the public interest, and not whether the investments they propose are prudent -- Whether a utility acted prudently is determined separately in subsequent cost recovery process -- Commission correctly determined that plans at issue were in the public interest -- Commission did not abuse its discretion or by excluding expert witness testimony on ground that testimony included improper legal opinion regarding whether statute and rules incorporated a prudence review -- Exclusion of expert testimony did not impair fairness of proceedings
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Proposal for settlement -- Judgment at least 25% less than proposal -- Setoffs -- Torts -- Automobile accident -- Trial court erred in invalidating driver's proposal for settlement because it did not address whether offer was inclusive or exclusive of setoffs -- Because fee entitlement depends on “net judgment” after setoffs, referencing potential setoffs in PFS itself is unnecessary and risks creating confusion -- Driver was entitled to attorney's fees where net judgment recovered by plaintiffs, after setoffs for personal injury protection and Medicaid discount, was zero
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Counties -- Elections -- Candidates -- Qualifications -- Change of office -- Withdrawal -- No error in denying relief in action seeking to disqualify candidate for county property appraiser -- Candidate did not effectively qualify for two offices with concurrent terms in violation of section 99.012(2) by failing to withdraw from hospital board race -- Court rejects argument that re-filing of candidate's DS-DE 9 form to change the office he sought was insufficient to withdraw candidate from hospital board race -- Election Code expressly permits a candidate who has previously filed a DS-DE 9 to change the office they seek, and the form expressly provides a space for the candidate to do so -- Candidate was not required to submit additional written document expressing his intention to withdraw from hospital board race -- No merit to argument that candidate's qualifying papers were untimely because they were time stamped after filing deadline -- Documents were timely where candidate was present in supervisor of elections office prior to filing deadline with all completed paperwork necessary for qualifying -- Candidate was permitted to pay filing fee for property appraiser race from campaign account he had opened for hospital board race -- Election Code does not require a candidate to open a new campaign account upon changing office for which candidate is running -- As the funds in campaign account were loaned by candidate himself, candidate was not required to notify any contributors of his intent to seek different office and could use funds to pay qualifying fee to run for property appraiser
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Estates -- Creditor claims -- Notice to creditors -- Reasonably ascertainable creditors -- Claims filed by deceased's daughter and daughter's husband seeking reimbursement for caretaking services, cost of remodeling home to make it handicap accessible, and funeral expenses -- Trial court abused its discretion in determining that daughter's husband was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor entitled to notice of administration and striking his claim as untimely where it was undisputed that the couple honored deceased's wishes to live in their home and to be provided with care and that deceased offered to pay for her care, and personal representative acknowledged the arrangement and encouraged the couple to document their expenses and time spent caring for the deceased -- Trial court did not err by requiring deceased's daughter, who was determined to be a reasonably ascertainable creditor, to amend her claim or file an independent civil action to defend her claim
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Paternity -- Attorney's fees -- Appellate -- Section 742.045, which governs attorney's fees and costs in actions to determine parentage, does not apply to fees incurred in appellate proceedings -- Conflict certified -- Because neither party provided alternative substantive basis for fees, motions for appellate attorney's fees are denied
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Real property -- Homeowners associations -- Assessments -- Developer's liability -- Pre- and post-turnover assessments -- Exemptions -- Trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in developer's favor regarding sufficiency of developer's contributions to association's reserve funds prior to point at which developer turned over control of development and association to parcel owners in development -- Trial court did not err in entering summary judgment determining that developer was not exempt from paying assessments for parcels which it owned after turnover -- Provision of declaration purportedly exempting the developer from post-turnover assessments conflicted with section 720.308(1) and was unenforceable
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Intercepted communications -- Disclosure -- Jurisdiction -- Non-residents -- Tortious act -- Business venture -- Action brought against non-resident attorney and law firm alleging violation of section 934.03 based on disclosure of recorded phone call between resident and firm's non-resident client in response to interrogatory in foreign litigation -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction -- Merely disclosing the existence of the recorded phone call was insufficient, standing alone, to constitute the commission of a tort within Florida -- Court rejects argument that, because firm represents a non-resident which solicited and conducted business within state, firm is subject to personal jurisdiction of Florida courts
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Presuit requirements -- Corroborating expert -- Qualifications -- No error in finding that plaintiff's expert was not a “medical expert” qualified under sections 766.102(5) and 766.202(6) -- Plaintiff's proposed medical expert was not engaged in “practice of medicine” or a “health care provider” as required by statutes where proposed expert's work during relevant timeframe was confined to legal consulting with no evaluation or treatment of individuals in context of a physician-patient relationship -- While expert's legal consulting work was related to the practice of medicine, it was not itself a medical practice -- “Health care provider” as used in section 766.102 means one who provides health care to patients, and does not encompass individual who merely holds a license under chapter 458
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Lewd or lascivious molestation -- Lewd or lascivious exhibition -- Evidence -- Opinion testimony -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Child Protection Team forensic investigator who interviewed victim to give limited testimony defining grooming and giving examples of general behaviors that could constitute grooming -- Trial court's exercise of its discretion not to allow interviewer to testify on ultimate facts of whether defendant groomed the victim or whether he did so in order to abuse the victim later was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or a line no reasonable jurists would adopt -- Interviewer's testimony was not unfairly prejudicial under section 90.403 where testimony was limited to defining grooming, listing some general grooming behaviors not specifically tied to defendant and the victim, and explaining that evidence of such behaviors was relevant to how she would interview the victim -- Jury instructions -- Lesser included offenses -- Trial court applied proper analysis in deciding not to give permissive lesser-included instruction on unnatural and lascivious act where jury could not have found any set of facts that would not have established guilt of higher offenses
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Plea -- Withdrawal -- Sentencing -- Considerations -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to withdraw plea which asserted that trial court had considered impermissible sentencing factors -- Trial court's consideration of a dropped robbery charge was improper -- While a trial court may consider circumstances surrounding primary offense and a defendant's prior record, consideration of subsequent misconduct or pending or dismissed charges is impermissible and violates a defendant's due process rights -- Remand for resentencing before a different judge where, based on trial court's comments at sentencing, it cannot be said that sentence would have been the same without the impermissible considerations
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Possession of firearm by convicted felon -- Jurors -- Misconduct -- Mistrial -- Trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for mistrial based on juror misconduct after judge was informed by juror that juror had looked up defendant on the internet -- Prejudice was established where juror's research revealed search results listing defendant's multiple prior convictions
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Racketeering -- Enterprise -- Judgment of acquittal -- Former sheriff's deputy charged with racketeering connected to defendant's act of planting narcotics in vehicles during traffic stops -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on racketeering charge because a racketeering “enterprise” could not have existed where state acknowledged that defendant acted alone in the commission of the crimes -- Discussion of RICO Act and supreme court's decisions in Gross v. State and Doorbal v. State -- Court rejects argument that sheriff's department could serve as the “enterprise” because defendant could not have committed offenses absent his position as a deputy or the resources of the department -- To interpret RICO Act in such a way would mean that every defendant who committed any third-degree felony punishable by no more than five years in prison would be guilty of a first-degree felony punishable by thirty years in state prison simply because the defendant was employed or somehow “associated” with another person or entity, neither of whom or which had any criminal involvement in predicate crime -- RICO Act does not apply to an individual who is associated with or employed by an enterprise, but who acts alone in use of such enterprise in the commission of prohibited criminal activities -- Question certified: Whether, under RICO Act, the state must prove that the enterprise in which the defendant is alleged to have participated or been employed by was being used by at least two persons with the understood purpose of accomplishing some illegal objective or end?
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sexual battery on person less than twelve years of age -- Confrontation of witnesses -- Remote testimony -- Trial court violated defendant's Confrontation Clause rights by permitting U.S. Marshal who apprehended defendant to testify remotely via Zoom over defendant's objection -- Staff shortages and convenience were legally insufficient to establish necessity of remote testimony, particularly in light of fact that witness was within court's subpoena power -- Error was harmless where state presented compelling evidence of guilt and testimony of U.S. Marshal was limited to relating that he had located the defendant on a bus in a foreign state five days after the incident
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Solicitation of person believed to be a child to commit illegal act -- Transmitting material harmful to minor -- Double jeopardy -- Single transaction -- Separate convictions and sentences for solicitation and transmission do not violate defendant's double jeopardy rights -- Although offenses occurred during one criminal transaction, elements are different, as transmission requires sending harmful image to someone believed to be a minor, but solicitation does not; transmission and solicitation are not different degrees of the same offense, and transmission is not subsumed by solicitation -- Trial court erred in refusing to sentence defendant for transmitting harmful material to minor
VIEW OPINION (login required)