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.

Counties -- School boards -- Committees -- Government in the Sunshine Law -- Meetings -- Notice -- Trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of school board based on determination that textbook committee, which was formed by school board to review and recommend textbooks to adopt for each class and grade, was not subject to Sunshine Law -- Textbook committee was subject to Sunshine Law because it was delegated decision-making authority -- Textbook committee did not provide adequate notice for each of its formal meetings as required by Sunshine Law where meetings were either held without notice or noticed through social media posts and press releases which did not include the location of the meetings or that they were open to the public -- Textbook committee also violated Sunshine Law by failing to maintain minutes of its meetings -- Court rejects argument that school board cured violations by holding properly noticed meetings at which school board discussed the recommended textbooks and public had the opportunity to ask questions -- Trial court did not err in finding that library committee, which was convened by assistant superintendent to review textbooks after school board had received complaints about certain materials, was not subject to Sunshine Law -- No aspect of decision-making authority was delegated to library committee where every book reviewed by library committee was submitted to school board for school board's final decision
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Real property -- Lis pendens -- Discharge -- Absence of nexus between dispute and apparent legal or equitable ownership of property -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to discharge lis pendens filed on his property by plaintiff -- Primary purpose of lawsuit was to recover damages to plaintiff's property which occurred during construction on defendant's home, and action did not directly affect title to or right of possession of defendant's property
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Counties -- Automobile accident -- Vicarious liability -- Sovereign immunity -- Waiver -- Conditions precedent -- Action filed against county sheriff stemming from car accident involving an on-duty deputy -- Trial court erred by denying sheriff's motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to serve sheriff or the county sheriff's office with notice of her claim as required by section 768.28(6), and the time for doing so had passed -- Emails sent to sheriff's office were insufficient to meet statutory notice requirements where, although emails identified plaintiff and the incident, emails did not notify sheriff that plaintiff planned to file a claim or demand compensation for her injuries -- Letters sent to other entities did not satisfy statutory notice requirements -- Plain language of statute required plaintiff to present a written claim to the entity that would be liable for its employee's negligence, which in this case was the county sheriff's office -- Additionally, plaintiff failed to comply with statute because she did not serve a notice on the Department of Financial Services -- Court rejects argument that notice send to Bureau of Consumer Assistance satisfied statute because it is a subdivision of DFS
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Hospitals -- Defamation -- Absolute immunity -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Action alleging that defendant hospital, through its CEO and counsel, had sent defamatory letters to doctor's employer which resulted in doctor's termination -- With regard to statements made by CEO, trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by denying hospital's motion to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds -- Hospital had absolute immunity from claims based on CEO's letter where plaintiff implicitly conceded that CEO was a government employee who acted within the scope of his duties when he authored allegedly defamatory letter by acknowledging that hospital was a government entity and CEO was a hospital employee, and alleging that hospital communicated through CEO -- With regard to statements made by hospital's counsel, trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by denying hospital's motion to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds -- Because counsel was an attorney in private practice, he was not a government employee and, therefore, was beyond the established limits of absolute immunity doctrine
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 -- Driving under influence -- Arrest -- Probable cause -- Defendant arrested for DUI after two restaurant bar patrons and a security guard prevented defendant from driving away and relayed their observations to officer -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to suppress DUI evidence because arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI -- Officer lacked probable cause where defendant was outside of her turned-off vehicle by the time officer arrived, officer was not investigating a car accident, and information was not relayed by another officer -- Officer could not rely on security guard's statements to establish probable cause because security guard was not a law enforcement officer -- Citizen's arrest -- Court rejects argument that security guard effectuated a valid citizen's arrest where security guard's actions of temporarily parking his golf cart behind defendant's vehicle and speaking with defendant to keep her from driving off did not necessarily prevent defendant from leaving
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Juveniles -- Discovery -- State's failure to comply -- Trial court erred by finding no discovery violation and failing to conduct a Richardson hearing after defense counsel notified trial court the state had failed to disclose a USB drive containing a log purporting to show that juvenile possessed child pornography -- State's initial disclosure of a police report which contained reference to the data it received being placed on a USB drive was insufficient to satisfy state's discovery obligation to disclose specific tangible objects or papers it intended to use -- State's failure to properly disclose subject evidence was not harmless where failure to disclose foreclosed defense counsel's ability to develop evidence to challenge the veracity of the statements in the business record certification or the reliability of the log
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Murder -- Death penalty -- Post conviction relief -- Counsel -- Ineffectiveness -- No error in summarily denying claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to delay Faretta hearing and seek neuropsychological testing based on counsel's knowledge of defendant's frontal lobe brain damage -- Counsel's actions were not deficient where two court-appointed experts had evaluated defendant and found him competent to waive counsel and enter guilty plea -- Claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to delay change of plea hearing was not cognizable where defendant was proceeding pro se with standby counsel at the time -- A pro se defendant, even if he or she has standby counsel, cannot later complain that quality of defense was substandard or amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel -- Prosecutorial misconduct -- No error in summarily denying claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on state's failure to investigate another inmate's allegations that prison guards intentionally placed defendant into the same cell as the victim because the other inmate refused guards' requests to harm victim -- Claim is procedurally barred where defendant could have discovered inmate's statements through due diligence and raised claim on direct appeal -- Claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on state's failure to advise court about guards placing defendant with victim as a possible mitigating factor is procedurally barred for same reasons -- Argument -- No error in denying claim that state committed Giglio violation when state argued that defendant had no pretense of moral justification when he committed murder -- Claims of improper argument should be raised on direct appeal and are therefore procedurally barred in post conviction proceedings
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Probation revocation -- Sentencing -- Appeals -- Counsel -- Appointed -- Brief -- Initial brief filed by appointed counsel, which does not state that an appeal would be frivolous and merely describes trial court's finding that defendant violated conditions of his probation, is legally insufficient pursuant to rule 9.140(g)(2) and is stricken -- Briefly describing what occurred at hearing and requesting that appellate court cite cases pending before the supreme court to preserve issues for further review does not comply with In re Anders Briefs or rule 9.140(g)(2) -- Discussion of rule 9.140(g)(2) and the viability of current Anders procedures -- Question certified: Does Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(2) and In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991), continue to accord with the fundamental principles of appellate review in a manner sufficient to invoke the court's jurisdiction, and, if so, do they require appellate courts to depart from their roles as neutral arbiters?
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Trial -- Absence of defendant -- Voluntary absence -- Hospitalization -- Trial court erred by allowing first day of trial to proceed in defendant's absence based on its determination that defendant had absented himself voluntarily by requiring hospitalization for a drug and alcohol overdose -- Trial court violated defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be present at every critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him by allowing state's case-in-chief to proceed in defendant's absence -- Discussion of waiver and procedural forfeiture of a defendant's constitutional rights -- Defendant's conduct, which occurred outside the courtroom without any demonstrated intent to disrupt the proceeding, did not operate as a waiver or forfeiture of defendant's fundamental rights -- Unless state can show that hospitalization is a ruse by the defendant to interfere with the proceeding, defendant's resultant absence from the proceeding is not voluntary and does not support a forfeiture of the fundamental right to be present -- Trial court erred when it relied on the voluntariness of defendant's misconduct, without more, as a substitute for the clear involuntariness of his absence to find, essentially, a “forfeiture by wrongdoing” -- Error was not harmless -- Remand for new trial
VIEW OPINION (login required)