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.

Employer-employee relations -- Whistle-blowers -- Jury instructions -- Trial court did not err by instructing jury that it could find that employer violated Florida's Private Whistleblowers Act if employee established that employer actually violated an applicable law, rule, or regulation -- A good faith belief that an employer violated a law, rule, or regulation is insufficient -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Bad faith -- Conditions precedent to suit against insurer -- Civil remedy notice -- Trial court erred in denying insurer's motion for summary judgment and allowing bad faith action to proceed where insurer was not given 60-day notice and opportunity to cure as required by section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2018) -- Court rejects argument that filing notice with Department of Financial Services constituted giving notice to the insurer under 2018 version of statute
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Probate Rules -- Amendment -- Notice -- Form and manner of objecting to personal representative's proof of claim -- Forms -- Initial and annual guardianship plans
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Real property -- Easements -- Small Tract Act -- Common law offer of dedication -- Acceptance -- Timeliness -- Scope -- Action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking removal of a beach-access boardwalk that county had built across plaintiffs' property more than twenty years ago -- Trial court did not err by denying request to remove boardwalk based on its determination that the easement right-of-way language contained in patent deeds issued by the U.S. in 1955 under the Small Tract Act constituted a common law offer of dedication, and acceptance of offer occurred by county's construction, rebuilding, and continuous maintenance of the boardwalk and the uninterrupted use by the public for approximately twenty-seven years without objection -- Acceptance of offer of dedication was timely -- As a matter of first impression, appellate court holds that the acceptance of an offer of public dedication made under STA did not have to occur prior to repeal of STA in order to be timely -- Court rejects argument that boardwalk was outside scope of offer because it was not a “roadway” as stated in patent deeds -- Given definition of “roadway” at time of STA's repeal, trial court correctly found that boardwalk fell within scope of offer of dedication -- Even if boardwalk was outside scope of offer of dedication, evidence showed that property owners intended to dedicate the property for access to water without limitation to roadway purposes -- Prescription easements -- Trial court erred by finding that county had proven an easement by prescription -- Use of boardwalk was not adverse to property owners as required to establish prescriptive easement where plaintiffs acknowledged that they and their predecessors in interest had permitted use of boardwalk without objection prior to filing their claims for injunctive relief -- Limitation of actions -- Laches -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that laches barred plaintiffs' claims -- Court rejects argument that it was plaintiffs' withdrawal of permission, not the building of the boardwalk, that gave rise to claims
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration -- Amendment -- Electronic signature of court official -- E-filing portal -- Computing and extending time -- Signature of and certificates of attorneys and parties -- Service of pleadings and documents -- Documents -- Electronic filing
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Discovery -- Medical records -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by allowing defendant to issue subpoenas to non-party healthcare providers seeking plaintiff's medical records -- Plaintiff's request that production be limited to the ten years preceding accident was properly rejected where plaintiff admitted that she had been disabled from a back injury for nearly forty years -- Subpoenas did not lack proper scope by requesting “any and all records” -- Plaintiff failed to carry burden of showing high probability that subpoenas would result in production of irrelevant medical records -- Trial court did not err in denying request for in-camera inspection of records where plaintiff never requested or expressed need for in-camera inspection until after trial court had denied plaintiff's other objections in their entirety
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Nursing homes -- Arbitration -- Enforceability of agreement -- Non-signatories -- Equitable estoppel -- Claims of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy brought against entity which had sold nursing home prior to resident's admission, alleging that entity had assisted and encouraged current owner and operator to breach contractual duties it owed to residents -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration under resident and facility arbitration agreement because defendant was not a party to the agreement and agreement did not state that it applied to predecessors -- Defendant's non-party status was not dispositive -- Defendant was entitled to compel arbitration based on the “arises out of or relates to” language contained in agreement where a significant relationship existed between claims at issue and underlying contract -- Furthermore, defendant may compel arbitration under equitable estoppel doctrine because both claims necessarily entail concerted misconduct between defendant and signatory entity
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 -- Appeals -- Jurisdiction -- Sentencing -- Criminal Punishment Code -- Downward departure -- Denial -- Appeal from trial court's refusal to depart downward from lowest permissible sentence, contending that sentence was extremely harsh under circumstances and was based in part on scoresheet that contained juvenile cases too remote to have bearing on defendant's current state -- Defendants have a constitutional right to appeal both judgment and sentence as final orders -- Accordingly, court has jurisdiction to consider defendant's appeal from trial court's refusal to depart where appeal was timely filed -- Court recedes from Wilson v. State and Parrish v. State insofar as dismissals were based on appellate court's purportedly lacking jurisdiction to consider claim regarding trial court's refusal to depart -- Defendant's claim that trial court should have imposed sentence different from the one it did is not a cognizable claim for appellate relief -- Defendant did not advance claim that trial court deprived him of constitutional right to fair proceeding before being deprived of his liberty, which is a legally cognizable claim in its own right, and did not argue that trial court either misunderstood law regarding permissible basis for departure or that trial court's determination was not supported by record -- Affirmance, not dismissal, is proper action when court is faced with timely appeal of order over which court has jurisdiction and there is no argument demonstrating a legally cognizable, harmful error that supports an appellate remedy
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Severance of trials -- Denial of motions filed pre-trial and during trial -- Claims by two defendants that they were deprived of fair trial because they were unable to present other crimes evidence regarding third defendant's involvement in prior murders and robbery were without merit where the other crimes did not share close similarity of facts or unique “fingerprint” type of information possessed by crimes with which defendants were charged -- Change in strategy -- Trial court did not err in finding that a codefendant's surprise “mere presence” defense made in opening statement somehow prejudiced one defendant because it placed codefendant at scene of shooting, although defendant contended this was a change in strategy -- Second defendant's claim that he was prevented from admitting a statement made by codefendant in an interview about his phone conversation with third defendant did not support severance where statement was inadmissible as hearsay -- Antagonistic defenses -- Trial court did not err in denying third defendant's motion to sever which alleged codefendants' defenses were antagonistic -- Simple hostility or attempts to shift blame to another does not require severance -- Trial court did not err in allowing codefendant to cross-examine DNA expert or in admitting DNA expert's testimony -- Accordingly, admission of this evidence did not support third defendant's motion to sever
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Trafficking in controlled substance -- Conspiracy to traffic -- Search and seizure -- Fruit of poisonous tree -- Dismissal -- Warrant application for defendant's phone and residence stating that it was for continuing domestic violence investigation but omitting exonerating statements in law enforcement's possession -- Trial court erred by dismissing all charges against defendant based on finding that all evidence was obtained as a direct result of a faulty search warrant and fruit of the poisonous tree -- Recorded calls defendant made from jail and the subsequent search of co-defendant's vehicle were unconnected to tainted search warrant where law enforcement had already gathered incriminating information from jail calls and discovered controlled substances in co-defendant's vehicle before the search of defendant's home and seizure of his phone
VIEW OPINION (login required)