FLW Mobile - For easier navigation on your mobile phone! | |||
Research Associates, Inc. |
|
LOG IN CONTACT Toll-free: 800-351-0917 E-mail us Submit Opinions PLACE AN ORDER Print Editions Online Editions Bound Volumes 2/24-Hour Online Access OUR PUBLICATIONS Florida Law Weekly FLW Supplement FLW Federal Collected Cases Sample FLW Online RESEARCH Cross Citations Week In Review Rule Revisions Review Granted Current Issue Index Civil Section Criminal Section 2023 Cumulative Index Civil Section Criminal Section Public Reprimands Florida Statutes Helpful Links |
More current. Less expensive.
Our Twitter page and e-alert service let you know when new cases have been posted, for any of our publications. No charge.
RECENT RELEASES - FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
DEPENDENT CHILDREN--TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS--LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS. The Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office appealed a district court decision reversing the lower court's termination of a father's parental rights based upon its conclusion that there was not competent, substantial evidence that termination was the least restrictive means of protecting the child. The Court reversed, finding that the district court improperly reweighed evidence, and therefore failed to correctly apply controlling precedent. The Court discussed the guiding principles for determining the least restrictive means set out in S.M. v. Florida Department of Children & Families. Applying those principles, the Court held: "It is clear from our review that there is competent, substantial evidence in the record supporting the trial court's determination that termination is the least restrictive means of protecting [the child] from serious harm, while affording [the father] due process protections."
TORTS--NEGLIGENCE--COMPARATIVE FAULT--DRAM-SHOP EXCEPTION. The Court held that the action permitted by the underage drinker exception in section 768.125, Florida Statutes, is a negligence action for purposes of the comparative fault statute. The fact that the statute contains a willfulness requirement does not mean that the action permitted by the statute is not a negligence action. The relationship between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury is what distinguishes negligence from an intentional tort. The term "willfully," as used in section 768.125, simply means that the alcohol provider knew that the recipient was under age 21, and does not change the basic relationship between the seller-defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury.
|