|FLW Mobile - For easier navigation on your mobile phone!|
Research Associates, Inc.
PLACE AN ORDER
2/24-Hour Online Access
Florida Law Weekly
Sample FLW Online
Week In Review
Current Issue Index
2019 Cumulative Index
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
CRIMINAL LAW--JURORS--PEREMPTORY STRIKE--RACIAL DISCRIMINATION--RACE NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKE--GENUINENESS--APPEALS. A party opposing a peremptory strike must make a specific objection to the proponent's proffered race-neutral reason for the strike, if contested, to preserve for appeal the claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the proffered reason was genuine.
FLORIDA BAR--RULES--AMENDMENT--MILITARY SPOUSES--PRACTICE OF LAW IN FLORIDA--TEMPORARY CERTIFICATION. The Court adopted, with modification, the Florida Bar's proposal to add a new subdivision (c) (Temporary Certification) to Bar Rule 21-4.1 (Military Spouse Authorization to Engage in the Practice of Law in Florida; Activities and Requirements). "Under the new subdivision, the spouse of a service member who has applied for certification under chapter 21 to engage in the practice of law in Florida may be certified by the Court to act as a certified legal intern while his or her application is pending."
CRIMINAL LAW--DEATH PENALTY--INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY. In affirming the denial of a defendant's successive motion for post conviction relief seeking another determination of defendant's intellectual disability, the Florida Supreme Court receded from its decision in Walls v. State, 213 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2016), which held that U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), was retroactive to cases where there had already been a finding that the defendant was not intellectually disabled. In so holding, the Court found that Hall is an evolutionary refinement of the procedure necessary to comply with Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), and it is not of sufficient magnitude to warrant retroactive application. Neither federal law nor stare decisis required the Court to apply Hall retroactively.