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.

Contracts -- Real estate brokers and salespersons -- Listing agreement -- Commission -- Incorporation/merger of documents -- Breach of contract action brought against seller seeking monetary damages for lost commission due under leasing agreement after seller rejected multiple offers which met or exceeded full listing price that seller had agreed to -- Trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of seller based on finding that offers did not meet requirements of listing agreement because they did not conform to offer instructions included in separate document signed only by the seller -- Any alleged changes to listing agreement, including incorporation of instructions document, violated statute of frauds because broker, as the party against whom enforcement is sought, never signed instructions document and no other written amendment to listing agreement existed -- Furthermore, incorporation or merging of instructions into listing agreement was erroneous where neither document referenced the other as required by merger doctrine and doctrine of incorporation -- Because offers met all terms of listing agreement, broker was entitled to its commission
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Contracts -- Torts -- Hospitals -- Sovereign immunity -- Waiver -- Negligence and breach of contract action brought against public health care system arising from data breach which exposed patients' private information -- Trial court did not err by granting defendant's motion to dismiss based on finding that defendant did not waive its entitlement to sovereign immunity -- Legislature has not explicitly waived sovereign immunity regarding the privacy issues implicated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or the Florida Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities -- Neither statute creates a cause of action against a governmental entity, and no private cause of action exists under HIPAA -- Furthermore, Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, a notice of privacy practices for protected health information, bylaws of the medical staff, and a code of conduct relied upon by plaintiffs, did not create an express written contract -- Such informational notices disseminated to patients do not give rise to express written contractual obligations binding the health care provider and the patient -- With regard to negligence count, damages plaintiffs claim from use of their personal and health information involve economic damages that fall outside section 768.28(1)'s limited waiver of sovereign immunity where there was no actual damage to tangible property
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Florida Bar -- Rules -- Amendment -- Admission -- Definition of accredited -- Law faculty affiliates -- Short-term limited legal services programs -- Activities -- Requirements and limitations -- Practice after graduation -- Requirements for registration -- Eligibility
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Contracts -- Florida Insurance Guaranty Association -- Settlement agreement -- Attorney's fees -- Enforcement -- Appeal of enforcement order requiring FIGA to pay full amount of mediated settlement agreement reached between insureds and former insurance company -- Trial court erred by requiring FIGA to pay portion of mediated settlement agreement that was for insureds' attorney's fees awarded under section 627.428 because attorney's fees were not part of “covered claim” for which FIGA is statutorily liable -- FIGA would only be liable for such fees if it wrongfully failed to pay covered claim, which was not alleged in instant case
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Hurricane damage -- Excluded perils -- Concurrent cause -- Collateral source -- Evidence -- Settlement or compromise of claim -- Insured's action against standard hazard insurer seeking coverage for all losses caused by hurricane on ground that home was destroyed by wind before occurrence of flooding and storm surge, which were not covered perils -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that insureds had made a claim to and received benefits from flood insurer -- Evidence was relevant to show that loss was caused by an excluded peril rather than a covered one and directly rebutted insureds' all-or-nothing theory of case -- Admission of evidence not foreclosed by section 90.408 where it appears that flood carrier compensated insureds without issue and simply fulfilled its contractual duty to insureds -- Moreover, evidence was offered to prove causation, not liability or value -- Common law collateral source rule does not bar admission of evidence of collateral source payments where evidence is relevant to liability or to rebut party's theory of the case -- Judgment in favor of insurer affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Landlord-tenant -- Contracts -- Residential lease -- Appeals -- Absence of transcript -- Trial court did not err in finding that ten-year residential lease was unenforceable where lease agreement lacked two subscribing witnesses as required by section 689.01(1) -- Equitable estoppel -- Waiver -- Tenant failed to overcome correctness of factual findings on which trial court based its rejection of tenant's estoppel and waiver defenses where appellate court was not provided with trial transcript -- Judgment in favor of landlord affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Amendment -- Process -- Demand for jury trial -- Forms -- Summons
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Amendment -- Production of documents and things and entry on land for inspection and other purposes -- Requests for admission -- Service on all parties
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Slip and fall -- Evidence -- Spoliation -- Sanctions -- Jury instructions -- Burden shifting -- Action stemming from head injuries plaintiff suffered after falling in checkout line at defendant store -- Trial court erred by instructing jury that, because defendant failed to maintain the security video evidence, there was a presumption that the video evidence would have been unfavorable to defendant, and that jury should find that plaintiff established the notice element of her claim unless defendant had proven otherwise by the greater weight of the evidence -- Imposition of a burden-shifting sanction after defendant had rested, which contradicted trial court's pre-trial pronouncement that it would instruct only as to an inference or presumption that the missing evidence was unfavorable to defendant, violated defendant's due process rights -- Experts -- Trial court abused its discretion by excluding defense expert who would have opined that fall was caused by plaintiff having an alcohol withdrawal seizure based on determination that opinion was not based upon any scientific principle -- Defense expert's opinion was the product of reliable principles and methods where expert relied on plaintiff's medical records from two hospitals she was brought to on day of incident, two compulsory medical examinations, plaintiff's medical history, fire rescue report, and deposition testimony -- Remand for new trial
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Trip and fall -- Duty to warn -- Open and obvious condition -- Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered when she tripped over a metal battery case in rotunda of sports stadium which had been placed in walkway by security guard employed by defendant -- No error in granting summary judgment in defendant's favor as to its duty to warn -- Battery case was open and obvious where area had ample lighting, metal box was placed on a green floor, and box had been left out in the open -- Duty to maintain -- Dangerous condition -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant as to its duty to maintain based on its determination that leaving battery case in walkway did not create a dangerous condition -- Although dangerousness of the abandoned battery case might have been open and obvious, it cannot be said as a matter of law that it wasn't foreseeable that a stadium patron like plaintiff would nevertheless trip over it, given where it had been left -- Jury could reasonably conclude that defendant breached its duty to maintain rotunda in reasonably safe condition
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 -- Burglary of dwelling -- Evidence -- Impeachment -- Prior convictions -- Defendant alleged to have taken victim's jewelry after entering her home without permission -- Trial court did not err by informing jury that defendant had twenty-three felony and five misdemeanor prior convictions involving dishonesty after defense counsel asked officer what defendant had said after officer testified that he asked defendant if he had any jewelry on him -- Defendant's response that he “didn't have jewelry on him” was exculpatory hearsay -- Prior felony convictions had probative value regarding the credibility of the hearsay statement attributed to defendant -- A reasonable judge could have ruled, as trial court did, that the probative value of impeaching defendant's credibility was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under the circumstances -- Although no evidence directly contradicted defendant's statement, that premise does not necessarily support conclusion that statement did not put defendant's credibility at issue
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Probation -- Conditions -- No-contact order -- Trial court did not err in summarily denying motion to terminate order prohibiting defendant from having contact with victim -- Court notes that although no-contact order issued as condition of pretrial release was terminated, because trial court sentenced defendant to incarceration followed by two years of probation and imposed, as a special condition of the probation, that defendant have no conduct with victim or victim's family during period of supervision, defendant will be subject to revocation of probation should he violate that special condition while serving his prison sentence
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Credit for time served -- Jail credit -- No error in summarily denying amended motion for correction of jail credit -- Record attachments conclusively refute argument that defendant is entitled to additional days of jail credit for time spent in Brevard County jail on violation of probation hold or detainer lodged in Orange County where Orange County VOP arrest warrant was not executed until after Brevard County charges were resolved -- Mere hold is insufficient to trigger entitlement to credit for time served on charges in county of defendant's arrest, because a hold or a detainer is quite different from an executed or transmitted arrest warrant
VIEW OPINION (login required)