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.

Arbitration -- Non-binding arbitration -- Trial de novo -- Timeliness of request -- Notice of arbitrator's decision -- Trial court erred by granting appellee's motion for judgment in conformance with arbitration decision based on determination that appellant's request for trial was untimely -- Arbitrator's decision was not served in compliance with rules 1.080 and 2.516 where title of email containing decision did not begin with “SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT,” but instead stated “New Invoice” -- Court rejects argument that compliance with rules was not necessary because section 44.103(5) requires only that an arbitrator's decision be presented to the parties in writing -- Section 44.103(5) must be read in conjunction with rule 1.080(a) and rule 2.516(b)(2)(C) -- Because appellant was not properly served with arbitrator's decision and filed demand for trial the day he became aware of the decision through the filing of appellee's motion, demand was timely filed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Sanctions -- Unsupported claims or defenses -- Domestic violence -- Injunctions -- In a domestic violence injunction proceeding, circuit court is legally limited to considering a motion for attorney's fees as a sanction under higher evidentiary standard of section 57.105(8), which applies to “proceedings for an injunction for protection pursuant to s. 741.30, s. 784.046, or s. 784.0485,” and cannot consider the motion under lower evidentiary standard of section 57.105(1), which applies to a “civil proceeding or action” -- Competent substantial evidence supported circuit court's finding that wife did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that husband knowingly made false statement or allegation in his petition for domestic violence injunction against wife, as required by section 57.105(8)
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Counties -- Public employees -- Insurance -- Self-insurance -- Administrators -- Competitive bidding -- Necessity -- Section 112.08 does not require county to competitively bid its contract for the professional administration of its self-insured healthcare plan -- Discussion of section 112.08 -- Statute limits its competitive-bidding requirement to “contracts for insurance” -- Competitive-bidding requirement does not apply when a local government contracts with a professional administrator to administer a self-insured healthcare plan -- Self-insured plans and contracts of insurance are fundamentally different where the local government retains the risk of loss under self-insured plans and, under contracts for insurance, an insurance carrier is required to indemnify the local government or assume responsibility for claims -- County's contract with administration is not contract for insurance because the contract does not transfer the risk of loss to another or require another to indemnify county
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Municipal corporations -- Public employees -- Veterans -- Promotional preference -- Public Employees Relations Commission erred by denying police officer's complaint that city had violated section 295.09(1)(a) by failing to afford him veterans' preference in promotion to detective -- Because city utilized an examination as part of its promotional process, it was statutorily required to use the examination to produce a “promotional register” where a wartime veteran, such as appellant, is awarded preference points -- Once promotional register is produced, statute requires that a candidate's position on the promotional register be dispositive of who gets promoted -- By promoting candidates who scored lower than appellant on exam, city violated statute -- Court rejects argument that statute did not apply because examination was only one component of city's promotional system -- Statutory mandate to promote a veteran ahead of all those appearing in equal or lesser positions on the promotional register is not contingent on how a hiring entity decides to use an examination for promotion -- Mandate unqualifiedly applies to all circumstances in which “an examination for promotion is used”
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Probate Rules -- Amendment -- Termination of guardianship on change of domicile or resident of ward -- Forms
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Small Claims Rules -- Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure -- Amendments -- Motions for new trial, rehearing, amendments of judgments, remittitur or additur
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Amendment -- Hearing procedures for non-binding arbitration
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Damages -- Medical expenses -- Evidence -- Collateral sources -- New trial -- Trial court did not err in granting a new trial based on court's improper application of section 768.0427, which reversed the evidentiary prohibition of the collateral source rule -- Statute does not apply to causes of action filed prior to statute's effective date -- Error in admitting collateral source evidence was not harmless -- Plaintiff did not invite error by presenting collateral source evidence given that trial court had ruled that section 768.0427 applied and also ruled that plaintiff bore the burden of proof of offering the evidence -- Trial court erred by limiting new trial to past and future medical expenses -- On retrial, jury should also determine causation and permanency as those issues are inextricably intertwined with the extent and nature of damages
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 -- Juveniles -- Sentencing -- Plea agreement -- Deviation -- Appeals -- Appeal by state -- State's appeal of disposition order imposing probation and suspended commitment rather than the actual commitment contemplated in plea agreement is dismissed -- State may only appeal a disposition order if it is illegal, and trial court's departure from the disposition agreed to in the parties' plea agreement, standing alone, is not an illegal disposition -- Order is not reviewable by certiorari because order is final, and there is no statutory right to appeal
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Inventory search -- Vehicle -- Conformance with policy or procedure -- Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered during an inventory search of defendant's vehicle following defendant's arrest for reckless driving -- Testimony was sufficient to establish that inventory search of vehicle was done in accordance with existing law enforcement policy where officer testified that impoundment occurs when a vehicle owner is arrested and no other registered owner is present to take the vehicle, and that an inventory search is conducted of impounded vehicles for the safety of the belongings inside the vehicle -- There is no requirement that state present evidence of law enforcement's written policy, or that policy be in writing at all
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Correction -- Successive motions -- Prison releasee reoffender -- Eligibility -- Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging legality of defendant's PRR sentence is procedurally barred where claims have been previously raised and rejected -- Manifest injustice -- Potential conflict in district courts regarding whether supreme court's decision in State v. Lewars applies retroactively does not establish manifest injustice sufficient to override procedural bar
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Speedy trial -- Recapture period -- State is entitled to recapture period under rule 3.191 even when charges are not filed until after speedy trial period has run -- Discussion of speedy trial rule -- The court recedes from its holding in State v. Williams, which held that a defendant is entitled to automatic discharge based solely on state's failure to file charges within speedy trial period -- By permitting automatic discharge without first affording state the recapture period mandated by rule 3.191, Williams effectively bypassed procedural prerequisites that rule expressly made a condition to that remedy -- There are no significant reliance interests that weigh in favor of retaining Williams as defendants are not likely to have substantially altered their conduct in reliance on Williams, which regulates state's conduct rather than defendants
VIEW OPINION (login required)