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.

Attorney's fees -- Proposal for settlement -- Joint proposal -- Validity -- Apportionment -- Proposal for settlement submitted by married homeowners for a unified, single claim for damages was invalid where it failed to state amounts and terms attributable to each homeowner -- Discussion of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 -- Court's precedent mandates strict enforcement of rule 1.442(c)(3)'s apportionment requirement -- Rule 1.442(c)(3) requires apportionment of a joint proposal regarding a unified, single claim
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Civil rights -- Public employees -- Florida Civil Rights Act -- Damages -- Sovereign immunity cap -- Federal preemption -- Trial court did not err in determining that federal Title VII's recovery cap does not preempt Florida's recovery cap under section 768.28(5) -- Title VII does not prevent states from imposing liability however they see fit, and FCRA's cap is not inconsistent with the purposes of the federal statute
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Courts -- Administration -- Orders -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Petition for writ of certiorari filed by public defender seeking to quash an administrative order issued by chief judge of circuit which prescribes who bears financial responsibility for court-appointed expert witness testimony in competency proceedings -- Discussion of appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction -- Certiorari does not lie to review AOs of this type where there is no proceeding of a lower tribunal and no judicial or quasi-judicial act to examine -- While a quasi-legislative or administrative order can acquire a quasi-judicial character sufficient to support certiorari review if the order requires notice, hearing, and consideration of evidence as a condition precedent to its issuance, no such predicate exists here -- Court rejects argument that 2025 amendments to rule 2.215(e)(2) affirmatively authorize appellate court to review AO by certiorari -- To the extent the rule contemplates a “petition for an extraordinary writ,” such a writ must still satisfy the constitutional and common-law requirements attendant to whatever writ is invoked -- The rule cannot, by its own force, transform an administrative act into a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding amenable to certiorari review -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Creditors' rights -- Proceedings supplementary -- Fraudulent transfers -- Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act -- Limitation of actions -- Relation-back doctrine -- Trial court erred by dismissing distinct supplemental complaints in proceedings supplementary asserting fraudulent transfers based on determination that complaints were time barred -- A motion to commence proceedings supplementary is tantamount to a complaint in an ordinary civil action -- Supplemental complaints related back to the original motion to commence proceedings supplementary where the claims asserted in the supplemental complaints arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the motion to commence
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Injunctions -- Unauthorized practice of law -- Contempt -- Indirect criminal -- Violation of previous Florida Supreme Court orders
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Prohibition -- Attempt to disqualify district court of appeal from hearing petitioner's appeal -- Denial of petition
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 -- Evidence -- Videotaped interrogation -- Opinion testimony -- Appeals -- Preservation of issue -- Defendant failed to preserve argument that trial court erred by admitting recording of custodial interview in which officers repeatedly opined that defendant was guilty of charged offense where, although defendant unsuccessfully moved in limine to exclude statements, defendant did not object to admission of evidence at trial -- Question certified: Must a defendant renew his or her objection at trial to the admission of evidence when a trial court has made a definitive pre-trial ruling on the record excluding it to preserve the issue for direct appeal?
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Murder -- Death penalty -- Post conviction relief -- Successive motion -- Newly discovered evidence -- Recanted testimony -- Discovery violations -- Withholding of material information -- Competent substantial evidence supported postconviction court's denial of relief on Brady claims that state withheld material and exculpatory evidence that two jailhouse witnesses who testified against defendant at trial were state agents and that state failed to disclose material, favorable evidence related to law enforcement's purported fabrication of investigative reports -- Giglio claim -- Denial of relief on claim that state presented and/or failed to correct false testimony of four prosecution witnesses was supported by competent, substantial evidence -- Right to counsel -- Claim under Massiah v. United States that state violated defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by eliciting statements through state agents was properly rejected -- Right to counsel had not yet attached for murder at issue when state allegedly elicited incriminating evidence from defendant's fellow jail inmates where defendant had not yet been arrested for the crime -- No evidence was presented to support claim that certain witnesses were acting as state agents -- Post conviction court's finding that newly discovered evidence in form of affidavits from recanting witnesses was not of such nature that it would probably produce acquittal on retrial was not in error
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Post conviction DNA testing -- Hearing -- Appeals -- Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing after results of DNA testing had been provided to all parties was not authorized, and trial court's order denying that request is not appealable
VIEW OPINION (login required)