|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
2017 Cumulative Index
2016 Cumulative Index
from Federal Courts
Viewing the full text of these opinions will require logging in with your user name and password.
Criminal law -- Habeas corpus -- Murder -- Death penalty -- Intellectual disability -- Texas court of criminal appeals' decision declining to adopt judgment recommended by state habeas court does not comport with Eighth Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishments and Supreme Court precedents -- By rejecting the current medical diagnostic standards that state habeas court applied in concluding that defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty and by following the Briseno standard it adopted for determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled, including the nonclinical factors, CCA failed adequately to inform itself of medical community's diagnostic framework
Speech -- Commercial -- State restrictions -- Dairy creamery that sells all-natural skim milk filed complaint contending state's refusal to allow it to call its product “skim milk” unless product was replenished with Vitamin A amounted to censorship in violation of First Amendment -- State's actions prohibiting use of term “skim milk” for milk that does not meet the standards for a Grade “A” milk product violate the First Amendment -- Creamery's commercial speech merits First Amendment protection and state's mandate was clearly more extensive than necessary to serve its interest in preventing deception and ensuring adequate nutritional standards -- Creamery's commercial speech merits First Amendment protection where its “skim milk” label does not concern unlawful activity and is not inherently misleading -- State's restriction on use of term “skim milk” is not exempt from First Amendment scrutiny as a regulation of speech relating to unlawful conduct because creamery's conduct of selling vitamin-deficient milk was not unlawful, only its speech of labeling the product “skim milk”
Torts -- Product liability -- Design defect -- “Metal-on-metal” hip replacement device -- Jury -- Deliberations -- District court did not abuse discretion in ordering jury to continue deliberations after jury had already begun to deliver its verdict where jury recorded on original verdict sheet both that there was no design defect and that defendant had made a negligent misrepresentation, which required a finding that there was a design defect; these findings were inherently inconsistent as there was “no rational, non-speculative way to reconcile” these findings; and district court, upon recognizing the inconsistency, immediately halted publication of verdict, instructed jury that any error had been made, gave a clarifying instruction emphasizing that jury's finding that there had been no design defect legally permissible, and also recharged the jury -- Where jury's responses cannot be reconciled, district court has discretion to direct jury to furthers consider its answers and the verdict, or order a new trial -- Jury instructions -- District court did not err in instructing the jury concerning the defense against strict liability under Utah's products liability law for unavoidably unsafe products set forth in Comment k of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts -- Any error by district court in failing to instruct the jury that unavoidably unsafe defense is categorical bar to strict liability under Utah law was harmless -- Even if Utah law extended the categorical bar to FDA-approved medical devices, on the record, any categorical bar to liability for an unavoidably unsafe product was not available to defendant who failed to meet its burden to prove that this affirmative defense applies to its hip replacement device