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.

Appeals -- Certiorari -- Discovery orders -- Action against petitioner alleging civil conspiracy and facilitating and furthering terrorism, in violation of Florida Anti-Terrorism Act -- Petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash order compelling discovery dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where basis for relief was that petitioner's response to discovery requests would require him to divulge confidential information and thereby breach his plea agreement with the United States in criminal conspiracy proceedings -- Determination whether information is, in fact, classified belongs to U.S. government, and petitioner has not utilized mechanism provided by plea agreement to determine whether disclosure is permissible -- Until plea agreement's pre-publication process is invoked and completed, claimed harm remains speculative and too remote to support certiorari jurisdiction -- Overbreadth not sufficient basis for certiorari relief where discovery requests appear reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Appeals -- Non-final orders -- Injunctions -- Court lacks jurisdiction to review nonfinal order granting protective order addressing appellant's escalating pattern of threats, harassment, misconduct, and abuse of process -- Order designed to manage conduct of litigation proceedings, rather than to grant or deny substantive relief sought in underlying complaint, does not become an injunction simply because it restricts a party's behavior during litigation
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorneys -- Discipline -- Impugning candidate for election to legal office -- Conduct or minor misconduct -- Constitutional law -- Speech -- Florida Bar rule 4-8.2, which subjects attorneys to discipline if they comment on qualifications or integrity of a candidate for election to a legal office with knowledge that the comment is false or with reckless disregard as to its truth, is unconstitutional as applied to the particular speech at issue in instant case in which attorney running for office of state attorney made numerous remarks about opponent's qualifications and integrity -- Rule is clearly content-based and therefore subject to strict scrutiny -- Generalized concern with preserving public confidence in judicial system is insufficient to justify restricting vigorous, open debate about the integrity and qualifications of candidates for the public office at issue, even if speech is inaccurate, offensive, and misleading -- Application of rule 4-8.2 and rule 3-4.3, which pertains to commission of acts “contrary to honesty and justice,” to attorney's campaign statements unconstitutionally infringes attorney's First Amendment right to freedom of speech
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Civil procedure -- Dismissal -- Sanction -- Fraud on court -- Appeals -- Standard of review -- In reviewing a trial court's dismissal of an action for fraud on the court, district court erred by applying a “more stringent” abuse of discretion standard and reversing the sanction -- When reviewing a trial court's dismissal of an action for fraud on the court, a district court should review the trial court's factual findings for competent, substantial evidence; its legal conclusions de novo; and its choice of sanction for abuse of discretion -- Nothing requires the appellate courts to hold the lower court to a “more stringent” reasonableness standard once it has determined that lower court had discretion to act -- Because lower court's findings were supported by competent substantial evidence and it had properly reasoned that plaintiff had committed fraud on the court which permeated entire proceeding, it had discretion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint -- Possibility that other judges may have permitted certain claims to proceed does not justify reversal
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Condominiums -- Contracts -- Sale -- Specific performance -- Condominium which provides existing owners the right of first refusal over non-owners of units to purchase any unit being offered for sale -- Trial court erred in determining that unit owners had not exercised their right of first refusal because they failed to prove that seller actually received their notice of intent to exercise their right -- Proof of actual notice was unnecessary where condominium declaration stated that notice was effective on date of mailing -- Sellers' cancellation of purchase agreement with non-owner after notice was mailed did not extinguish unit owners' option to purchase -- When an owner enters into a contract for sale, a pre-existing right of first refusal is converted into an irrevocable option to purchase -- Although unit owners failed to comply with a condition precedent by failing to pay deposit required by purchase agreement, sellers waived defense by failing to plead defense with required specificity
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Dissolution of marriage -- Equitable distribution -- Prejudgment interest -- Trial court has discretionary authority to award prejudgment interest in order to achieve equity in distributing marital property under section 61.075 -- Statute expressly authorizes those remedies “available to a court to do equity between the parties,” and prejudgment interest can be fairly described as an equitable remedy in this context -- In case at issue, district court properly held that trial court's stated basis for denying former wife's request for prejudgment interest on her share of marital assets lacked evidentiary support and was inconsistent with purpose underlying prejudgment-interest awards -- Discussion of section 61.075 and prejudgment interest in equitable distribution context
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Settlement agreement -- Enforcement -- Attorney's fees -- Florida Insurance Guaranty Association -- Trial court erred in entering order enforcing insured's settlement agreement with former insurer against FIGA where agreement allocated amount for attorney's fees -- Amount allocated by settlement agreement for payment of insureds' pre-insolvency attorney's fees must be excluded because pre-insolvency attorney's fees did not result from FIGA denying a covered claim within the meaning of sections 627.428 and 631.70 -- Even assuming sections 627.428 and 631.70 are not implicated here, pre-insolvency attorney's fees must still be excluded because fees in this case do not fall within the meaning of a covered claim under section 631.54(4) -- Interest -- Prejudgment -- Unspecified monies allocated for payment of pre-judgment interest by FIGA must be excluded because FIGA is not liable for payment of pre-judgment interest on a covered claim under the plain language of section 631.57(1)(b)
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Rear-end collision -- Punitive damages -- Use of cell phone while driving -- Trial court erred in granting plaintiff leave to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages where proffered evidence did not demonstrate reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages -- Driver's mere use of cell phone while driving does not provide reasonable basis for seeking punitive damages -- Proffer was insufficient to support allegations that defendant failed to observe stopped traffic, drove at unreasonable speed, and was so engaged with his phone that he did not brake -- Order granting motion to amend complaint reversed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Fraud -- Breach of fiduciary duty -- Aiding and abetting -- Civil conspiracy -- Limitation of actions -- Finality accrual rule -- Action brought against law firm which provided a report to plaintiffs' accounting firm in 2000 dismissing the illegality and potential criminal liability of an investment strategy implemented for plaintiffs despite firms' knowledge that strategy was likely an illegal tax shelter -- No error in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that claims were barred by statute of limitations -- Discussion of finality accrual rule and supreme court's decision in Kipnis v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank, AG -- Kipnis does not impose bright-line rule that, in all tax shelter cases, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until IRS obtains a judgment -- Waiting for IRS judgment against plaintiffs' sham partnership in 2014 was unnecessary because plaintiffs' damages were no longer hypothetical after partnership had stipulated that it was a sham and that transactions lacked economic substance back in 2010 -- Once partnership made stipulations, the only issue remaining was the amount of damages
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Hospitals -- Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan -- Multi-count complaint against hospital and its executives alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duties against each of executives, individually, and vicarious liability against hospital on ground that executives failed to implement systems and process to guard against delayed cesarean section, proximately causing injuries to plaintiffs' infant -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by denying hospital's and non-clinician executives' motion to abate lawsuit pending determination by an administrative judge as to whether claims are compensable under NICA plan
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Vicarious liability -- Presuit requirements -- Necessity -- Action brought against physician's employer alleging that its nonmedical staff was negligent in the management of its telephone systems and handling of after-hours phone calls, and that it was vicariously liable for its answering service's acts and omissions -- Trial court erred by dismissing action for failure to comply with presuit requirements of section 766.104 -- Allegations in the complaint do not directly relate to medical care or services that require the use of professional judgment or skill where complaint alleged that defendant's answering service was implemented, managed, and operated by nonmedical staff and, as a result of the manner in which service was operated, defendant's answering service failed to accurately inform the on-call doctor of messages left by callers and did not inform callers that their entire message would not be communicated to physicians -- Because allegations form basis of ordinary negligence claims, compliance with presuit requirements of section 766.104 was not required
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Infectious disease -- Duty of care -- Knowledge of dangerous condition -- Negligence action alleging that restaurant and its owner were liable for the tuberculosis plaintiffs contracted from a restaurant employee because defendants reasonably should have known of employee's illness and failed to prevent employee from having contact with customers -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants based on determination that defendants lacked constructive knowledge of the general threat of harm because plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants knew or reasonably should have known that employee was ill with TB specifically -- Question is not whether defendants knew or reasonably should have known that employee was infected with TB specifically, but instead whether they knew or reasonably should have known that employee was infected with a contagious disease -- A jury could reasonably conclude that defendant knew or should have known that employee's illness was serious enough that it could be harmful to customers and that they should have taken action to remedy it where evidence established that employee had a noticeable respiratory illness with conspicuous symptoms that lasted for almost three months -- Proximate cause -- Trial court erred in concluding that record did not show that defendants' actions were the proximate cause of plaintiffs' illnesses -- Evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants could reasonably foresee that allowing an ill server who has been suffering from a cough for a lengthy period to interact with restaurant patrons and their food would likely result in the patrons contracting the infectious disease -- It is immaterial that the defendants could not foresee the precise manner in which the injury occurred or its exact extent -- Trial court further erred by impermissibly weighing the evidence and resolving inconsistencies
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Workers' compensation -- Compensable accidents -- Occupational causation -- Shooting -- District court erred in determining that a claimant who was shot while walking between facilities at work was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits for his injuries based on conclusion that there was no “occupational causation” because claimant's walking in the performance of his work did not cause him to suffer injuries from a shooting -- In repeatedly framing “walking” as only relevant “work performed,” district court improperly focused on claimant's isolated task rather than on claimant's overall work duties and work environment, and conflated “arising out of” and “caused by” -- When a third-party tortfeasor assaults an employee who is in the course and scope of employment, the resulting injuries can be compensable under workers' compensation law so long as claimant can meet its burden of establishing work-relatedness -- Discussion of sections 440.09(1) and 440.02(36) and the meaning of the phrase “arising out of work performed” -- To determine work-relatedness, the necessary inquiry is whether a work risk somehow caused or contributed to the injury -- Because proof of risk exposure can be sufficient to satisfy occupational causation requirement in workplace assault cases, proof of a work-related motive for the assault is not required -- Remand for district court to conduct proper evidence review and apply correct legal standard
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Medical malpractice -- Duty of care -- Action brought against advanced practice registered nurse and owner of pain management clinic after decedent left their care and committed suicide because he could no longer receive the specific pain medication he had been receiving prior to changes in clinic staff and ownership -- No error in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants -- While defendants owed decedent a duty of care when he was a patient at the clinic, that duty ended when decedent terminated that relationship -- Prescription written for decedent after he terminated patient relationship did not create a duty that was breached by defendants when the prescription was refused for lack of proper certification from prescribing physician -- Defendant nurse did not write prescription, and prescription was not refused because of anything connected to nurse -- With regard to defendant clinic, complaint only alleged vicarious liability for nurse's alleged negligence, not prescribing physician -- Furthermore, any duty created by giving prescription would have expired when prescription was set to be exhausted, which was well before decedent's death
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 -- Probation revocation -- Sentencing -- Violent felony offender of special concern -- Danger to community -- Determination by judge rather than jury -- Defendant failed to preserve argument that trial court improperly designated and sentenced her as a VFOSC without jury findings to support the designation where defendant failed to object to lack findings during sentencing -- Although defendant filed a rule 3.800(b) motion, Apprendi/Erlinger claims are not cognizable under the rule because they merely raise procedural errors -- Court recedes from its prior precedent holding that such claims could be raised in a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(b) -- Even if argument was preserved, Erlinger does not require a jury to find the fact of defendant's prior conviction for purposes of the VFOSC designation -- Although trial court erred by failing to make written findings on whether defendant posed a danger to the community, such error was harmless -- The only possible impact of written findings under the statute is to remove the trial court's discretion to continue probation -- Where, as here, a trial court does not continue probation but sentences a defendant to prison for reasons unrelated to any finding of danger to the community, the trial court's failure to make written findings on such danger is harmless
VIEW OPINION (login required)