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 Revenue -- Taxation -- Ad valorem -- Valuation of property -- Review of adverse decisions by valuation adjustment board -- Standard of review -- When property appraiser asserts to DOR that there exists a “consistent and continuous violation of the intent of the law or administrative rules and notifies the department of those portions of the tax roll for which the assertion is made, DOR is required to investigate and determine whether a consistent and continuous violation of intent of law or administrative rules has occurred -- Absent legislative guidance otherwise, burden of proof is preponderance of evidence -- Conflict certified -- DOR's order finding that its review of property appraiser's assertions demonstrated lack of probable cause reversed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Appeals -- Per curiam affirmance -- Discussion of purpose of PCAs
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Timeliness of motion -- Real property -- Lis pendens -- Discharge -- Trial court erred in granting motion for attorney's fees and costs associated with preparation of motion to discharge lis pendens, motion for intervention, and hearing on these motions where motion was not filed within 30 days of order discharging lis pendens -- Trial court erred in ruling that order discharging lis pendens was a non-final order to which 30-day requirement of rule 1.525 did not apply -- Reservation of jurisdiction -- Exception for instance in which trial court finds entitlement to attorney's fees and costs but reserves jurisdiction to determine amount does not apply where order did not clearly make a finding that movant was entitled to fees and costs and the only thing left to do was to determine an amount -- Thirty-day period for filing motion was not extended by stay that was entered past expiration of 30-day deadline
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Dissolution of marriage -- Equitable distribution -- Marital home -- Trial court erred in failing to place a value on marital home before ordering its sale and distribution -- Trial court's failure to assign a specific value to home does not frustrate appellate review where judgment directed the home be sold and proceeds divided equally -- Remand required for clarification of issues concerning payment of expenses of marital residence pending its sale where trial court ordered that marital home be sold and that debts associated with home be paid from sale proceeds, but did not account for mortgage, taxes, insurance, and other carrying costs pending the sale -- Trial court abused discretion by ordering marital home sold without making written finding explaining why former husband's request to keep the home and satisfy former wife's share through an equalization payment was rejected -- Remand required for trial court to reconsider its decision to mandate the sale of the home either by providing for a reasonable alternative or explaining why the sale is necessary -- Former husband's partition sale argument is flawed where final judgment did not order a partition sale but ordered home sold as part of equitable distribution scheme
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Estates -- Replevin -- Notice of claim -- Necessity -- Replevin claim brought against personal representative alleging that she wrongfully refused to return corporation's property following death of decedent, one of the corporation's two owners -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of personal representative based on conclusion that appellants were required to file a notice of claim under section 733.702 in order to preserve their replevin claim and failed to do so -- Statute applies to claims or demands against decedent's estate that arose before death of the decedent -- Where, as here, decedent was merely in possession of property without asserting ownership, and assertion of ownership is made by personal representative or heirs for the first time after death, filing a claim under section 733.702 is not required
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Bad faith -- Failure to settle -- Commercial business property -- Trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice insured's bad faith action on ground that insured's damages were fixed by judgment entered in favor of insured in its breach of contract action against the insurer, which insurer had paid -- Bad faith action under section 624.155 was ripe for litigation where insured had established a determination of insurer's liability for coverage and the extent of insured's contractual damages, and the required civil remedy notice was filed -- Although insured may not seek contractual damages which were litigated, or could have been litigated, in insured's breach of contract action, insured's bad faith action may seek extra-contractual damages which were not recoverable in the breach of contract action -- Insurer's belated payment of civil remedy notice's cure amount after appellate court had affirmed the underlying breach of contract judgment did not preclude insured's bad faith action -- Excess judgment in underlying breach of contract action was not essential element of insured's first-party bad faith claim because excess judgments are not available in breach of contract action in first-party property insurance claims -- Discussion of Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, which was misapplied by trial court in instant case
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Appellate Procedure -- Amendment -- Original proceedings -- Briefs -- Stay pending review -- Uniform citation system -- Forms
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Juvenile Procedure -- Amendment -- Application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act -- Adjudicatory hearings
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Punitive damages -- Amendment of pleadings to allege claim for punitive damages -- Section 768.72(1) provides that “[i]n any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages” -- Trial court applying the statute should consider only evidence identified or proffered by claimant and should not consider an evidentiary counter-submission from opposing party -- Test for deciding evidentiary sufficiency under statute is whether a reasonable person could conclude, based on claimant's evidence, that defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence,” as defined in section 768.72(2) -- If claimant seeks to plead punitive damages against an employer under theory of vicarious liability, evidentiary sufficiency test must also ask whether reasonable person could conclude that claimant's evidence satisfies the substantive legal criteria set out in section 768.72(3) -- Finally, trial court must review request for punitive damages in context of underlying claims -- When reviewing sufficiency of evidence under section 768.72(1) at the pleading stage, trial court should not apply clear and convincing evidence standard of proof but must consider the record evidence and proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the claimant -- Extensive discussion of section 768.72(1) and of the relationship between subsections of section 768.72 -- District court erred in holding that trial court must consider evidentiary showing by all parties at hearing on motion to amend and that trial court must make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing totality of proffered evidence in light most favorable to movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted -- District court's decision quashed and remanded so that district court can reexamine case under construction of statute explained by Court
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 -- Accessory after the fact to a capital felony -- False report to law enforcement authorities -- Immunity -- Dismissal -- Charges stemming from the killing of victim for which defendant had been granted immunity under Stand Your Ground law -- No error in dismissing charge of accessory after the fact to a capital felony -- Because plain language of section 777.03(1)(c) requires the commission of a capital felony, defendant's immunity for lawfully killing someone in self-defense precludes state's prosecution for that offense -- Trial court erred by dismissing charge of false report to law enforcement authorities concerning a capital felony as charge related to conduct directed toward law enforcement, not the commission of the underlying crime
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Vehicle -- Traffic stop -- Officer had objectively reasonable basis for stopping defendant for driving vehicle with an illuminated blue “Uber” sign mounted on dashboard -- Illuminated sign clearly violated section 316.2397, which restricts driving vehicle with any “lamp or device thereon displaying” certain lights visible from directly in front of vehicle and expressly prohibits vehicle or equipment, other than police vehicles, to show or display blue lights -- Exceptions to restrictions included in statute do not apply in instant case
VIEW OPINION (login required)