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 -- Department of Health -- Physicians -- Licensing -- Revocation -- Medical malpractice -- Board of Medicine did not err by revoking licensee's medical license after granting department's exceptions to administrative law judge's finding that licensee had not committed medical malpractice, despite finding that licensee failed to diagnose, track, and monitor his cancer patients or refer them to specialists, because none of licensee's patients were actually harmed as a result of licensee's treatment -- Patient harm need not be established before Board can exercise its authority to discipline a physician for medical malpractice -- Constitutionality of statute -- Standing -- Licensee lacks standing to bring claim that section 456.073(5) unconstitutionally shifts the determination of the standard of care from the ALJ, as a finding of fact, to the Board of Medicine, as a conclusion of law -- Licensee cannot show that he had been “adversely affected” by challenged portion of statute where he failed to demonstrate that Board, not ALJ, made the determination of the standard of care in instant case -- By finding that licensee failed to monitor, track, and refer his patients, ALJ implicitly determined licensee did not meet the standard of care with respect to those patients and those failures -- Board simply reversed ALJ's erroneous conclusion the section 458.331(1)(t) requires patient harm
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Contracts -- Real property -- Homeowners associations -- Attorney's fees -- In awarding association attorney's fees under declaration and section 720.305(1), trial court erred in determining that declaration permitted an award of fees incurred in litigating the amount of fees -- Declaration provision at issue, which appears under “Enforcement” subheading and authorizes attorney's fees only in a judgment rendered in an action or proceeding “pursuant hereto,” is not broad enough to encompass fees for fees -- Language of declaration limits the attorney's fees award to actions brought under the declaration's authority for enforcing the declaration, articles of incorporation, and by-laws
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Probate Rules -- Amendment -- Adversary proceedings -- Disposition without administration of intestate personal property in small estates -- Summary administration -- Amendments reflecting recent legislative changes
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Attorneys -- Fraud -- Breach of fiduciary duty -- Aiding and abetting -- Complaint -- Amendment -- Punitive damages -- Complaint and proffer alleging attorney and law firm aided and abetted a third party's fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty by drafting and recording a fraudulent quit claim deed -- Trial court erred by granting request to amend complaint to assert punitive damages claim against attorney -- Plaintiff failed to make a reasonable showing that would provide a reasonable basis for recovery against attorney where record showed that attorney did not know or represent third party and did not draft deed or direct deed to be recorded -- Record contained sufficient allegations against law firm to allow amendment for punitive damages where record showed that partner of firm was lead attorney representing third party and deed was prepared at partner's direction
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 -- Sentencing -- Cruel and unusual punishment -- Offenses committed by juvenile -- Life imprisonment without parole -- Trial court did not violate defendant's Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by sentencing defendant to life without parole for homicide offense committed when he was a juvenile, consecutively followed by two concurrent life-without-parole sentences for related nonhomicide offenses -- Defendant had meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on his demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation through sentence review of first life sentence after 25 years and second review of consecutive life sentences 25 years later -- Discussion of Supreme Court holdings in Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, and Jones v. Mississippi -- Defendant, as a juvenile homicide offender, was not constitutionally entitled to meaningful opportunity for release for his nonhomicide offenses under Graham; rather, individualized sentencing only had to be consistent with Miller and Jones
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sexual cyberharassment -- Venue -- Trial court did not err by denying motion for judgment of acquittal asserting that state was precluded from prosecuting defendant in Osceola County because venue was established in Orange County where sexually-explicit videos of the victim were received by the victim's significant other pursuant to section 910.15(1) -- Just because state could have prosecuted defendant in Orange County pursuant to section 910.15(1) does not mean that the state was precluded from prosecuting appellant in Osceola County pursuant to section 910.15(2), which provides that communications “made by or made available through the use of the Internet” are made in every county within the state -- Because competent substantial evidence established that defendant facilitated his crime via an email communication that was made by or made available through the use of the Internet, venue was proper in any county within the state
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sexually violent predators -- Involuntary civil commitment under Jimmy Ryce Act -- Qualifying offenses -- Sexually motivated crimes -- Summary judgment -- Burden of proof -- Defendant charged with sexual battery and kidnapping with a firearm, but convicted of lesser-included offenses of battery and false imprisonment -- Trial court applied incorrect burden of proof in granting state's motion for summary judgment when it determined that state had proven by clear and convincing evidence that appellant was convicted of a sexually violent offense -- Because appellant was convicted of lesser-included offenses which were not specifically listed in section 394.912(9), state had to establish, and trial court was required to find, that criminal acts defendant was convicted of were sexually motivated beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by section 394.912(9)(h) -- Jury trial -- Entitlement -- Court rejects arguments that appellant is entitled to a jury trial because the issue of whether crimes were sexually motivated is in dispute, and that an order of summary judgment would be inappropriate when proceeding under section 394.912(9)(h) -- The only determination to be made in instant case is whether one of appellant's purposes for committing the crimes of battery and false imprisonment was sexual gratification, and relevant statutory language requires only that this determination be made during commitment proceedings which, by rule, permit resolution through summary judgment -- If record evidence indicates that a reasonable jury would be unable to find the crime was not committed for sexual gratification, and all the legal elements are established by the appropriate burden, then state would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law and an order of summary judgment would be appropriate
VIEW OPINION (login required)