LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 
Forgotten your password?


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
    2017 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2016 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links



  
Federal New Releases

New Releases
from Federal Courts

Viewing the full text of these opinions will require logging in with your user name and password.

Civil procedure -- Sanctions -- Inherent power -- Bad faith -- District court abused discretion in finding that law firm acted in bad faith when it failed to investigate adequately plaintiff's citizenship before it represented to defendant and the court that diversity jurisdiction existed -- District court applied an incorrect standard for inherent power sanctions and ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence when it stated that law firm's specious inquiry into plaintiff's jurisdiction and their jurisdictional misrepresentations were reckless and that inherent power sanctions are governed by an objective standard -- The correct standard is a subjective bad-faith standard, and recklessness alone does not constitute conduct tantamount to bad faith -- Courts considering whether to impose sanctions under their inherent power should look for disobedience and be guided by the purpose of vindicating judicial authority, concerns which were not present in case at issue -- District court failed to afford due consideration to relevant evidence, specifically defendant's burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction as the party seeking removal, defendant's submissions to the court which created the impression that subject matter jurisdiction existed, and law firm's effort to investigate and identify plaintiff's citizenship -- Law firm's conduct did not amount to conduct that abused the judicial process -- Sanctions order reversed
VIEW OPINION

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
VIEW OPINION

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”
VIEW OPINION

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
VIEW OPINION

Find out more about FLW Federal.