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.

Florida Probate Rules -- Amendment -- Evidence of death -- Filing evidence of death
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Florida Probate Rules -- Amendments -- General definitions -- Petition for approval of acts -- Emergency temporary guardian
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Entitlement -- Confession of judgment -- Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer concluding that insurer's post-filing payment of policy limits following an appraisal process that complied with the insurance policy's terms did not constitute a “confession of judgment” entitling insured to recover his attorney's fees under section 627.428(1) -- Confession of judgment doctrine does not apply to a “race to the courthouse” situation where, as here, suit was filed before claims process broke down -- Section 627.70152 does not alter this conclusion where, although it permitted insured to sue insurer when appraisal had not concluded within ninety days, it did not compel insured to sue -- Furthermore, the ninety-day deadline to sue does not constitute a deadline for an appraisal's completion -- Court rejects insured's invitation to award fees based on section 627.70152(8)'s formula, which turned, in part, on the insurer's presuit settlement offer of $0 -- Because insurer accepted coverage of insured's loss and invoked appraisal, it was not required to make a presuit settlement offer
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Florida Insurance Guaranty Association -- Personal property -- Replacement cost policy -- Evidence -- Directed verdict -- Trial court erred by entering directed verdict in favor of FIGA on insured's personal property claim based on determination that insured lacked proper inventory of the allegedly damaged items -- Because insured paid an additional premium to insure his personal property for its replacement value, he did not need to admit evidence beyond proof of ownership of damaged property and the associated replacement cost -- Insured presented sufficient evidence of his personal property damages through his testimony, admitted photographs and receipts, and emails that listed items that mitigation provider removed from insured's home alongside insured's handwritten valuations -- FIGA waived its lack of foundation and authentication arguments regarding the emails when it stipulated to their admission without limitation -- Damages -- Statutory cap -- Trial court erred by granting motion in limine which precluded evidence of damages that would exceed statutory cap -- Statutory cap on FIGA's obligation to pay covered claims for insolvent insurers does not prohibit insured from presenting evidence of full extent of his damages
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Appellate Procedure -- Amendments -- Cost and attorneys' fees
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Amendment -- Depositions on oral examination -- Production of documents and things without deposition -- Pleadings and motions -- Complex litigation -- Forms -- Final disposition form -- Prospective juror questionnaire
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Amendment -- General provisions governing discovery -- Signing disclosures and discovery requests, responses, and objections
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Amendment -- Subpoena -- Proof of service -- Forms -- Affidavit of claimant in response to notice to appear -- Affidavit of diligent search and inquiry -- Mortgage foreclosure -- Fact information sheet -- Satisfaction of judgment
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Compulsory medical examination -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by denying plaintiff's motion for protective order and requiring plaintiffs, who currently reside out of state, to submit to compulsory medical examinations in Miami-Dade County -- Place of physical examination is a matter of the trial court's discretion, and there was no abuse of discretion in instant case where accident occurred in Miami-Dade County and defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs' reasonable and documented travel expenses
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Conversion -- Property rights -- Ownership interest in condominium unit -- Trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of plaintiff on count asserting claim for conversion of property rights based on allegations that condominium association “exercised its dominion and authority” over unit by refusing to recognize plaintiff's ownership of unit and discouraging purchasers -- Real property cannot be subject of a conversion claim
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Defamation -- Discovery -- Depositions -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Action claiming that defendant patient defamed plaintiff doctor by claiming that plaintiff sexually battered defendant while she was sedated -- State attorney still deciding whether to file criminal charges against plaintiff -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by blocking defendant from deposing plaintiff for an indefinite period of time based on potential need for plaintiff to assert Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination -- Based on record, there is no justification to allow plaintiff to continue to prosecute his claim and depose defendant while being protected from being deposed of purposes of protecting his option to assert a Fifth Amendment claim -- Plaintiff may either dismiss his case and refile when he is prepared to either testify or assert the privilege, or assert privilege against self-incrimination with respect to specific questions or discovery and have trial court make the appropriate inference or strike pleadings to extent such an assertion goes to the heart of the relief sought
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Trade secrets -- Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act -- Misappropriation -- Willful and malicious appropriation -- Attorney's fees -- Punitive damages -- Action stemming from former employee's surreptitious use of plaintiff's customer list as part of their contemporaneous and subsequent employment with a competing car rental business -- Trial court did not err by failing to hold competing car rental business and its owner and manager liable for willful and malicious appropriation and denying an award of punitive damages and attorney's fees on that basis -- FUTSA's “willful and malicious” standard is same as common law standard for awarding punitive or exemplary damages -- Even though owner and manager had reason to know of former employee's misconduct, evidence on liability did not rise to level of culpability required to meet the heightened “willful and malicious” standard where owner and manager testified that they believed former employee's representation that plaintiff was closing and trial court found that testimony to be credible, and plaintiff presented no direct evidence that competitor defendants had actual knowledge that former employee had misappropriated customer list before they were served with lawsuit -- Because trial court's determination that no managing agent acted with willful and malicious intent was supported by record, corporation itself could not be directly liable -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award punitive damages against former employee -- Trial court's finding that former employee had willfully and maliciously misappropriated trade secret did not require the court to also award punitive damages under section 688.004(2) where statute gives trial court discretion over decision to award punitive damages, and trial court reasonably believed that compensatory damages awarded against former employee were sufficient to make an example out of former employee and satisfied deterrence policy behind punitive damages -- Appeals -- Proper standard -- Court rejects invitation to reverse trial court's decision on ground that it is against manifest weight of the evidence -- After a bench trial, appellate court reviews a trial court's factual findings under a “competent substantial evidence” standard, not a “manifest weight of the evidence” standard -- Actual loss damages -- No abuse of discretion in rejecting valuation testimony of both parties' experts and awarding zero dollars for actual loss caused by misappropriation -- Plaintiff cannot be heard to complain for first time on appeal about trial court's failure to adopt defense expert's calculation as measure of actual damages where plaintiff vigorously attacked expert's opinion at trial and never hinted that defense expert's opinion may be a valid alternative basis for assessing damages -- Additionally, because trial court reasonably could have believed that any causal link between the misappropriation and the subsequent closing of plaintiff's rental business was too speculative, trial court was within its discretion to reject expert's figure, which was reached using business valuation methodology, as proper measure of actual loss -- Trial court did not err by applying “should have known” standard, which allegedly imposed an investigatory duty of ascertainment, to find competitor defendants liable for misappropriation by acquisition -- Viewed in its entirety, final judgment consistently applied proper “reason to know” standard in deciding case -- Liability for misappropriation by acquisition can include a subsequent acquirer who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means -- Unjust enrichment damages -- No error in finding competitor defendants jointly and severally liable for “unjust enrichment” damages -- Because trial court found that defendants had all “misappropriated” the same trade secret within the meaning of the Act, they are all liable for damages “caused by” the “misappropriation,” including “unjust enrichment” of the wrongdoers -- Trial court erred by refusing to reduce unjust enrichment damages award by 15% where no competent substantial evidence linked greater than 85% of competitor's gross profits to plaintiff's customer list
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 -- Considerations -- Trial court erred by relying on two withdrawn affidavits of violation of probation when making dangerousness finding and imposing VFOSC sentence -- Consideration of withdrawn affidavits constituted a violation of defendant's due process rights
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Resisting officer without violence -- Lawful execution of legal duty -- Search and seizure -- Investigatory stop -- Reasonable suspicion -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal because officers were not engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty when they detained defendant -- 911 call reporting that someone matching defendant's description was trying to turn their door knob, on its own, did not form reasonable suspicion to detain defendant -- While officers were entitled to attempt to question defendant, absent corroborating evidence of criminality, the caller's information amounted to a “mere hunch” that was not sufficient to justify even a brief detention
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Criminal Punishment Code -- Departure -- Denial -- Trial court was not required to state on the record its reasons for rejecting defendant's request for departure below lowest permissible sentence -- Extensive discussion of Banks v. State -- Court rejects any claim that a trial court errs by failing to apply Banks two-step process” on the record -- Even if evidence supported departure on grounds that need for restitution outweighed need for imprisonment and offense was committed in unsophisticated manner and was an isolated incident for which defendant showed remorse, sentencing court was not obligated to depart below lowest permissible sentence
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Third degree murder -- Felony murder -- Leaving child unattended in motor vehicle with great bodily harm -- Jury instructions -- Mens rea -- Defendant's felony conviction for a violation of section 316.6135(4) is reversed where jury was instructed that it could convict defendant without proof that defendant knowingly left child in vehicle -- Legislature's failure to expressly include mens rea element in statute is not dispositive -- The word “leave” in section 316.6135 requires proof that the initial act of leaving child unattended in vehicle was done knowingly, consciously, or with volition -- Such an interpretation aligns with the presumption in favor of mens rea without adding any words to the statute -- Because third degree felony murder conviction was predicated on defendant's conviction for leaving child unattended in motor vehicle with great bodily harm, it too must be reversed -- Reversal for felony murder conviction would still be required even if section 316.6135 did not require state to prove knowledge because felony murder cannot be based on an unenumerated predicate felony that does not require any proof of intent -- Remand for new trial before a jury properly instructed on section 316.6135
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Criminal Procedure -- Amendment -- Pretrial motions -- Motion to dismiss -- Requirements that facts on which motion is based be specifically alleged and that motion be sworn
VIEW OPINION (login required)