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
    2016 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2015 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links



  

New Releases
from Florida's Circuit and County Courts

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


Landlord-tenant -- Security deposit -- Landlord is not entitled to recover property damages from tenants in absence of sufficient evidence establishing that tenants caused the damages claimed by the landlord -- Landlord entitled to recover amounts for cleaning unit when tenants left, trash removal, and replacement of certain items, as conceded by tenants -- With respect to counterclaim asserting that landlord failed to provide proper written notice of its intent to impose a claim on security deposit, court finds that landlord satisfied requirements of law -- Jurisdiction reserved to award attorney's fees to tenants as prevailing parties on complaint and to landlord as prevailing party on counterclaim
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- PIP policy providing that insurer will pay 80% of reasonable expenses but also providing that in no event will insurer pay more than 80% of No-Fault Act schedule of maximum charges does not provide clear and unambiguous notice of intent to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule -- Approval of policy by Office of Insurance Regulation or use of OIR sample form does not constitute per se compliance with requirement that policy provide unambiguous notice of intent to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Small claims -- Motion to invoke rules of civil procedure in small claims case is denied where invocation will not assist court or parties to reach just conclusion to case
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Requests for identification of every person who accessed claim file and every fact known to insurer about claim are overbroad -- Medical provider may depose claims representative to determine if there were other individuals with decision making authority, and insurer must disclose information relied upon in making decision about claim -- Insurer is not required to respond to interrogatories or requests to produce seeking information and documents claimed to be privileged until it is determined whether privilege exists and, if so, provider makes required showing of necessity and inability to obtain information through other means -- Insurer is not required to provide claim information that provider already possesses -- Insurer is not required to produce all information transmitted to medical providers
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- PIP policy that gives insurer unbridled discretion to consider various factors found in reasonable amount method of reimbursement and in permissive fee schedule method of reimbursement does not provide clear and unambiguous notice of intent to limit reimbursement to fee schedule -- Approval by Office of Insurance Regulation does not validate policy and notice or render them invulnerable to judicial invalidation
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Attorney's fees -- Claim or defense not supported by material facts or applicable law -- Sanctions against insurer are appropriate where insurer knew or should have known that affirmative defenses of standing and laches were not supported by material facts when it initially presented defenses or, at latest, when it received medical provider's motion for sanctions and safe harbor letter, yet insurer continued to litigate defenses until it waived them
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- Reasonableness of charges -- Where insurer waived all defenses to medical provider's action for PIP benefits, including right to challenge reasonableness of charge, and unilaterally determined reasonableness of charge by applying statutory fee schedule not elected in policy when processing provider's bill, reasonableness of charge is not at issue -- Final judgment is entered in favor of provider for balance of improperly reduced bill
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- Where insurer placed insured's claim in “auto process” mode, in which system automatically pays bills in accordance with statutory fee schedule without any individual reviewing bills for reasonableness, relatedness or necessity, insurer waived its right to investigate medical provider's MRI bill and cannot challenge bill as unreasonable, unrelated or unnecessary in suit for unpaid balance of bill
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- PIP policy that gives insurer unbridled discretion to consider various factors found in reasonable amount method of reimbursement and in permissive fee schedule method of reimbursement does not provide clear and unambiguous notice of intent to limit reimbursement to fee schedule -- Approval by Office of Insurance Regulation does not validate policy
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- PIP policy that provides that insurer will pay lesser of 80% of actual charge or 80% of schedule of maximum charges contained in section 627.736(5)(a)2 clearly and unambiguously elects to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule
VIEW OPINION

Criminal law -- Driving under influence -- Evidence -- Statements of defendant -- Accident report privilege -- State cannot use defendant's admission to driving vehicle involved in crash as evidence that defendant was driving vehicle where admission was made in response to questioning by trooper at hospital for purpose of accident investigation and without defendant being advised that any criminal investigation had begun -- Trooper could not base determination that defendant was driving at time of crash on unreliable hearsay from other driver involved in crash, who could only provide physical description of driver, or from persons who named defendant as owner of vehicle -- Motion to suppress is granted
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- Insurer that breached PIP policy by utilizing statutory fee schedule that was not clearly and unambiguously elected in policy when processing medical provider's bill is not entitled to challenge reasonableness of charges
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- Insurer that breached PIP policy by utilizing statutory fee schedule that was not clearly and unambiguously elected in policy when processing medical provider's bill is not entitled to challenge reasonableness of charges -- No merit to argument that relatedness and medical necessity of services remain at issue where relatedness and necessity were admitted by insurer's action of making partial payment on claim
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Agreement wherein plaintiff collection agency purchased receivables from medical provider is not discoverable -- Standing -- Absent privity, insurer cannot challenge assignment between plaintiff and provider
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- Lawfully rendered services -- Insurer had no obligation to pay clinic whose medical director was not performing her statutorily mandated duties -- Court rejects plaintiff's position that only the Agency for Health Care Administration can find clinic in violation of statute
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Depositions -- Insurer is not allowed to depose nurse practitioner regarding her determination that insured suffered emergency medical condition -- PIP statute does not permit insurer to challenge determination of qualified provider that insured had emergency medical condition
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Depositions -- Insurer is not allowed to depose nurse practitioner regarding her determination that insured suffered emergency medical condition -- PIP statute does not permit insurer to challenge determination of qualified provider that insured had emergency medical condition
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Confession of judgment -- Summary judgment -- Factual issue -- Medical provider's motion for summary judgment seeking determination that insurer has confessed judgment is denied where there exists genuine issue of fact as to whether payment made by insurer constitutes confession of judgment
VIEW OPINION

Condominiums -- Attorney's fees -- Removal of tenant from unit -- Prevailing party -- Although action by condominium association seeking injunction removing tenant due to alleged violation of provisions of declaration of condominium governing noise and removal of pet waste became moot when tenant moved out, tenant and unit owner are prevailing parties where evidence indicates that injunctive relief would have been denied if case had proceeded to final hearing and that litigation was not sole impetus for tenant's move
VIEW OPINION

Consumer law -- Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act -- Dismissal -- Mortgage foreclosure is not debt collection activity under FCCPA
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where insurer has deliberately failed to comply with multiple orders requiring production of geozip information and has made substantial misrepresentations to court and attempted to use results of its own bad faith conduct as excuse for noncompliance with orders, and insurer's conduct has prejudiced medical provider in its attempts to obtain discoverable evidence and prosecute action, insurer's pleadings are stricken and default judgment is entered
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where insurer has deliberately failed to comply with multiple orders requiring production of geozip information and has made substantial misrepresentations to court and attempted to use results of its own bad faith conduct as excuse for noncompliance with orders, and insurer's conduct has prejudiced medical provider in its attempts to obtain discoverable evidence and prosecute action, insurer's pleadings are stricken and default judgment is entered
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where insurer has deliberately failed to comply with multiple orders requiring production of geozip information and has made substantial misrepresentations to court and attempted to use results of its own bad faith conduct as excuse for noncompliance with orders, and insurer's conduct has prejudiced medical provider in its attempts to obtain discoverable evidence and prosecute action, insurer's pleadings are stricken and default judgment is entered
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where insurer has deliberately failed to comply with multiple orders requiring production of geozip information and has made substantial misrepresentations to court and attempted to use results of its own bad faith conduct as excuse for noncompliance with orders, and insurer's conduct has prejudiced medical provider in its attempts to obtain discoverable evidence and prosecute action, insurer's pleadings are stricken and default judgment is entered
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Settlement agreement -- Enforcement
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Expert witness -- Insurer's expert witness on reasonableness of charges is stricken where insurer has not demonstrated that proffered opinion, that reimbursement rate of 80% of 200% of Medicare fee schedule is maximum reasonable charge, is based on sufficient facts or data and product of reliable principles and methods and that witness has reliably applied principles and methods to facts of case
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Automobile -- Complaint -- Amendment -- Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint to correct name of defendant insurer is granted -- There is no prejudice to insurer where both insurer named in original complaint and proper insurer have same address, thereby providing proper insurer with notice of plaintiff's claim, and plaintiff acted swiftly to correct mistake
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- Reasonableness of charges is appropriate issue to be determined by summary judgment -- Opposing affidavit filed by insurer does not preclude summary judgment in favor of medical provider on reasonableness issue where affidavit lacks evidence of sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, or scientific knowledge and is akin to pure opinion testimony
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where insurer has deliberately failed to comply with multiple orders requiring production of geozip information and has made substantial misrepresentations to court and attempted to use results of its own bad faith conduct as excuse for noncompliance with orders, and insurer's conduct has prejudiced medical provider in its attempts to obtain discoverable evidence and prosecute action, insurer's pleadings are stricken and default judgment is entered
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where insurer has deliberately failed to comply with multiple orders requiring production of geozip information and has made substantial misrepresentations to court and attempted to use results of its own bad faith conduct as excuse for noncompliance with orders, and insurer's conduct has prejudiced medical provider in its attempts to obtain discoverable evidence and prosecute action, insurer's pleadings are stricken and default judgment is entered
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where insurer has deliberately failed to comply with multiple orders requiring production of geozip information and has made substantial misrepresentations to court and attempted to use results of its own bad faith conduct as excuse for noncompliance with orders, and insurer's conduct has prejudiced medical provider in its attempts to obtain discoverable evidence and prosecute action, insurer's pleadings are stricken and default judgment is entered
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where insurer has deliberately failed to comply with multiple orders requiring production of geozip information and has made substantial misrepresentations to court and attempted to use results of its own bad faith conduct as excuse for noncompliance with orders, and insurer's conduct has prejudiced medical provider in its attempts to obtain discoverable evidence and prosecute action, insurer's pleadings are stricken and default judgment is entered
VIEW OPINION

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Vehicle stop -- Obscured tag -- Where frame around vehicle tag partially blocked “myflorida.com” at top of tag and “Sunshine State” at bottom of tag but did not obscure alphanumeric designation, tag was not in violation of section 316.605, requiring that identification marks on tags be kept free from obscuring matter, and stop for tag violation was illegal -- State's argument that stop was lawfully initiated for violation of section 320.061, which prohibits placement of any covering around tag that interferes with legibility, is without merit where, consistent with courts' interpretation of section 316.605, court interprets section 320.061 to apply only to identification marks on tag -- Motion to suppress is granted
VIEW OPINION

Criminal law -- Conspiracy to deliver and traffic narcotics -- Racketeering -- Evidence -- Computer printouts of order history of narcotics allegedly ordered by defendant through website of pharmaceutical company based in China, which was obtained by law enforcement using defendant's username and password learned by listening to jail call made by defendant in which he instructed co-conspirator to log onto website using his information and place orders for narcotics -- Hearsay -- Computer-generated records that indicate human input, rather than merely reflecting data generated by internal operations of computer itself, and which are being offered for the truth of matters asserted therein are hearsay -- Exceptions -- Business records -- Printouts are business records but are not admissible under business records exception to hearsay rule where state is not able to lay proper foundation for admissibility through records custodian or witness from pharmaceutical company -- Co-conspirator statements -- Printouts that are non-testimonial are admissible as co-conspirator statements where pharmaceutical company is alleged co-conspirator with defendant, there is prima facie showing that conspiracy existed, and computer record of defendant's orders was made in furtherance of conspiracy -- State will be required to authenticate printouts as accurate and correct statements through testimony of co-conspirator who was instructed by defendant to log onto website and place orders -- Motion in limine is denied
VIEW OPINION

Interest -- Prejudgment interest -- Rate -- Under section 55.03, statutory interest rate in effect on date of plaintiff's loss in 2008 is rate to be used in calculating prejudgment interest, at least up to June 2011 when statute was amended to provide for annual adjustment of rate
VIEW OPINION

Civil procedure -- Discovery -- E-mail -- Magistrate recommends that motion to compel plaintiff to authorize recovery and release of her deleted e-mails from her e-mail providers be granted
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Motions for directed verdict or new trial following jury verdict in favor of insured who suffered damage to wood flooring due to broken water supply line under house are denied -- Verdict form -- No merit to argument that new trial is required because trial court used verdict form that did not refer to policy exclusion for loss due to constant or repeated seepage or leakage over 14 or more days where verdict form proposed by insurer that asked first if loss was due to sudden or accidental release of water and, if response to first question was yes, then asked if loss was due to constant and repeated seepage for more than 14 days would have been confusing and posed risk of inconsistent verdict -- Moreover, there is no reasonable probability that claimed error in verdict form contributed to verdict where insurer failed to prove that damage, which was caused by burst water supply line, was caused by seepage or leakage within meaning of policy exclusion or that loss could only have occurred over period of 14 or more days -- Evidence -- Trial court asking insurer's expert to clarify his opinion as to whether loss was sudden or occurred over extended period does not warrant new trial -- Work product -- No merit to argument that trial court erred in admitting damage estimate prepared by insurer's adjuster into evidence where adjuster testified that estimate was prepared in ordinary course of business and not in anticipation of litigation, and admission of estimate did not prejudice insurer -- No merit to argument that jury's verdict is contrary to parties' stipulation that due to broken supply line home was exposed to water for 14 or more days where policy exclusion does not apply simply because home was exposed to water for more than 14 days, it applies only if loss resulted from one of specified seepage or leakage conditions, which was not proven
VIEW OPINION

Municipal corporations -- Competitive bidding -- Standing -- “John Doe” plaintiffs -- Developer who submitted unsuccessful bid in response to city parking authority's request for proposals and, therefore, may not have actually been aggrieved by authority's failure to advertise RFP cannot avoid issue of its standing to bring suit against authority and successful bidder by adding unnamed John Doe plaintiffs alleged to have been aggrieved and affected by their wrongful exclusion from bidding process -- Claim that identity of putative John Doe plaintiffs is covered by attorney-client privilege is frivolous -- Motion to strike all John Doe allegations is granted -- Developer may amend complaint to add and identify actual aggrieved parties or case will proceed on developer's claims alone
VIEW OPINION

Torts -- Interference with dead bodies -- Negligence -- Violation of Florida Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services Act -- Limitation of actions -- Interment in wrong burial plots -- Where plaintiffs suffered economic injury that was latent and undiscoverable but redressable when their ancestors were interred in wrong burial plots decades ago and later allegedly suffered emotional and psychological injury when errors were discovered and bodies were disinterred and reinterred in correct plots, cause of action accrued at time initial redressable injury occurred -- Claims are barred by 4-year statute of limitations
VIEW OPINION

Contracts -- Rescission -- Unilateral mistake -- Action by plaintiff who contracted to purchase a 20-carat diamond from defendant at a price quoted by defendant's supplier/consignor after defendant refused to complete the sale upon learning that the quoted price for which defendant offered to sell the diamond was a per-carat price rather than the price for the entire diamond -- Jury instructions -- Although Florida Supreme Court has held that a party may avoid a contract on grounds of unilateral mistake if it proves that the mistake did not result from inexcusable neglect, that the other party did not detrimentally rely on the agreement, and that the mistake goes to the substance of the agreement, district court, in prior appeal in instant case, has added an additional prong, that requires party seeking to avoid contract demonstrate that the party seeking to enforce contract induced the mistake or contributed to it -- Law of the case requires that jury be instructed on four-prong test enunciated by district court in this case, rather than three-prong test
VIEW OPINION

Contracts -- Employment -- Noncompetition covenant -- Injunctions -- Former employee breached noncompetition covenant by opening and operating competing weight-loss clinic within proscribed geographic area shortly after termination of his employment -- Breach was not justified by any alleged prior breach of employment agreement by former employer where undisputed facts negate each claimed breach, and any claims of breach were waived by former employee's failure to assert them at any time prior to lawsuit -- Injunction is entered against former employee where breach was material, former employer has no adequate remedy at law for ongoing violations, and contract itself entitles former employer to injunction
VIEW OPINION

Real property -- Trusts -- Resulting or constructive trust -- Action by children of deceased mother seeking imposition of resulting or constructive trust on property acquired with mother's funds but titled in names of mother and son-in-law as joint tenants with right of survivorship is dismissed with prejudice -- Standing -- Any claim for imposition of resulting or constructive trust, if one exists, belongs to mother's estate, not to her alleged heirs -- Limitation of actions -- Claim to property against legal title holder brought more than 20 years after title was recorded is time-barred -- No merit to plaintiffs' arguments that action is not time-barred because doctrine of laches rather than statute of limitations controls timeliness of action and because they were not obligated to assert their rights until son-in-law took action to dispossess plaintiffs from property
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Motion for directed verdict arguing that insurer's payment of its adjuster's estimate of actual cash value of insureds' loss satisfied as matter of law insurer's contractual obligation to pay “at least” actual cash value of loss is denied -- No merit to argument that insurer is not obligated to make additional payments until and unless repairs to property are undertaken where insurer's obligation to pay at least true actual cash value of loss exists irrespective of whether insureds elect to use payment for repairs
VIEW OPINION

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Fraud on court -- Dismissal -- Where plaintiff suffered injuries in slip and fall and second automobile accident during eight months following automobile accident that is subject of current case, and plaintiff sought treatment from different physicians for each injury and failed to notify any of his treating physicians of his other accidents or injuries, representing instead that injury being treated by that physician was his only injury, plaintiff's actions of denying or withholding information about other accidents from treating physicians so as to preserve claim for each accident separate and untainted by other pending claims is tantamount to fraud on court -- Fraud was advanced by efforts of plaintiff's attorney to exclude or strike any reference to medical records from subsequent accidents -- Motion to dismiss is granted
VIEW OPINION

Criminal law -- Manslaughter -- Dismissal -- Where defendant and companions that included victim were drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana as they handled defendant's unloaded firearm, pointing it at each other; defendant retrieved firearm, reloaded it without informing his companions and placed it on kitchen counter; and one companion picked up firearm, racked it, pointed it at victim and pulled trigger; facts do not support finding of culpable negligence required to support charge of manslaughter against non-shooter defendant -- Motion to dismiss is granted
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Coverage -- Medical expenses -- PIP policy providing that insurer will pay 80% of reasonable expenses but also providing that in no event will insurer pay more than 80% of No-Fault Act schedule of maximum charges does not provide clear and unambiguous notice of intent to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule -- Approval of policy by Office of Insurance Regulation does not satisfy requirement that policy provide unambiguous notice of intent to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule where it is not clear from insurer's letter requesting approval or OIR's letter of approval that OIR was approving language as election to limit payment pursuant to fee schedule
VIEW OPINION

Municipal corporations -- Code enforcement -- Nuisance abatement -- Drug activity at motel and bar -- Due process -- No merit to argument that city was required to notify owner of motel and bar prior to commencement of nuisance abatement action and provide opportunity to abate nuisance before penalties could be imposed where city code does not require notice or opportunity to abate -- Review of hearing transcript does not support claims that owner was denied due process because members of nuisance abatement board acted as judge and prosecutor or because its counsel was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine witnesses regarding new matters allegedly raised at hearing by board and city attorney -- No merit to argument that only competent substantial evidence of drug activity was evidence of activity instigated by city police department seeking to purchase drugs in bar where there were at least two instances of drug purchases outside of bar within area encompassed in city code's definition of “premises” -- Remedial measures -- No merit to argument that board's requirement that motel maintain identifying information on every guest and provide information to police on request is illegal where board order specifies that information need not be provided if precluded by law, and motel or any guest may object to request to supply information -- No merit to argument that remedial measures unnecessarily infringe on motel that is separate enterprise from bar where nuisance activities did not occur only in bar -- Issue of whether remedial measures are so restrictive as to constitute compensable taking is not properly raised in petition for writ of certiorari challenging board order
VIEW OPINION

Municipal corporations -- Code enforcement -- Appeals -- Doctrine of res judicata does not bar pier owner from raising in appeal of special master's third order finding code violations at pier the same issues raised in appeal of special master's first order finding violations where orders concern different time periods -- Issue of vague notice that was actually considered in first appeal is barred by law of case doctrine -- Issues that were deemed to have been waived in first appeal because they were not raised below were not actually litigated and, therefore, are not barred by law of case or collateral estoppel -- No merit to argument that finding of violation in third order is not supported by competent substantial evidence because building officials did not inspect pier for one year prior to hearing where third hearing and order determined compliance only as of thirty days after first hearing -- Even if third order determined compliance as of hearing date, building officials did not need to revisit pier because notice of violation required pier owner to hire contractors and pull permits, which it did not do -- Where special master erroneously considered issues to be waived at third hearing that were not raised at first hearing concerning different time period, case is remanded to allow parties to present evidence on issues
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Discovery -- Failure to comply -- Sanctions -- Where order prohibiting medical provider from utilizing any information sought in discovery as sanction for failing to provide discovery would preclude provider from proving its claim, order was, in effect, an order of dismissal, and trial court was required to set forth findings applying Kozel factors -- No merit to argument that provider did not raise issue of failure to apply Kozel factors below where provider argued that sanction was too severe and listed Kozel factors -- In hearing on insurer's motion for summary judgment, trial court erred in placing burden on provider to prove reasonableness of charges before insurer met its burden to demonstrate absence of triable issue of material fact -- Remand required
VIEW OPINION

Licensing -- Driver's license -- Suspension -- Driving under influence -- Hearing officer's determination that arresting officer had probable cause to believe that licensee was DUI is supported by probable cause affidavit stating that licensee was owner of vehicle that crashed into mailbox and that officer observed that licensee had watery bloodshot eyes, strong odor of alcohol, and slurred speech -- No merit to argument that hearing officer's statement that licensee had opportunity to present evidence of another persons's involvement or to subpoena arresting officer demonstrates that hearing officer impermissibly shifted burden of proof to licensee where statement can be read as permissible comment on licensee's lack of rebuttal evidence
VIEW OPINION

Municipal corporations -- Development orders -- Attorney's fees -- Appellate fees -- Motion for reconsideration of order granting motion for appellate attorney's fees under section 57.105 as sanction for filing frivolous appeal is granted -- City and developer failed to strictly comply with requirements of rule 2.516(b)(1)(E) when serving motion for section 57.105 attorney's fees on condominium association via e-mail where subject line in did not contain the required phrase of “SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT,” body of e-mail failed to identify information required by Rule 2.516(b)(1)(E)(ii) and instead directed the reader to see the e-mail's attachments, and motion attached to e-mail was not provided in PDF format -- Motion for fees is denied
VIEW OPINION

Criminal law -- Driving under influence -- Jurors -- Challenge -- Cause -- Trial court abused its discretion in failing to excuse for cause a juror's whose comments about effect of medication on his parents cast reasonable doubt on his ability to be impartial in case involving driving under influence of prescription medication where juror was not rehabilitated -- Error was reversible
VIEW OPINION

Colleges and universities -- Student discipline -- Hearing -- Due process -- Student charged with violation of honor code for engaging in non-consensual sexual act was denied due process where associate director of student conduct, purportedly acting as university advisor, usurped role of hearing officer at student conduct hearing by ruling on relevancy of student's question regarding alleged victim's past sexual history -- Remand for new hearing
VIEW OPINION

Counties -- Rezoning -- Variances -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Timeliness -- City's petition challenging county zoning commission's approval of variances was untimely where petition was not filed within thirty days of rendition of resolution approving variances -- Argument that resolution was not an appealable final order because it was contingent on county commission's approval of rezoning does not change result -- Rule governing appeal of quasi-judicial decisions states that petition for review of quasi-judicial actions must be filed within thirty days of rendition of order and does not require that decision, order, or action be final
VIEW OPINION

Licensing -- Driver's license -- Suspension -- Driving under influence -- Lawfulness of stop -- Although formal review hearing may be conducted relying solely on documentary evidence, evidence must make clear how arresting officer arrived at conclusion that there was probable cause for stop, not merely recite conclusions without factual support -- Order sustaining license suspension is quashed
VIEW OPINION

Municipal corporations -- Code enforcement -- Property owners who received actual notice of code enforcement hearing, albeit not via statutorily required mode of service, and who presented testimony and argument at hearing were afforded procedural due process -- Appellate court must defer to city's interpretation of its governing code where interpretation is not unreasonable or clearly erroneous -- Arguments regarding exemptions under Florida Building Code that were not raised before special magistrate were not preserved for appellate review
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Attorney's fees -- Medical provider that obtained confession of judgment as to statutory penalty and postage but voluntarily dismissed its claim for PIP benefits was not entitled to award of attorney's fees and costs
VIEW OPINION

Licensing -- Driver's license -- Commercial license -- Suspension -- Refusal to submit to breath test -- Evidence at formal review hearing supported hearing officer's findings that law enforcement had probable cause to believe licensee was driving or in actual physical control of commercial motor vehicle or any vehicle as holder of commercial driver's license while under influence, that licensee refused to submit to breath test after being requested to do so by law enforcement officer subsequent to lawful arrest, and that licensee was told that refusal would result in license suspension for at least one year -- Petition for writ of certiorari challenging order upholding suspension is denied
VIEW OPINION

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Class action -- Plaintiff's theory that she was improperly billed by medical providers for balance of bills that were only partially paid by PIP insurer due to its election to limit reimbursement to statutory fee schedule without notification of insured fails to state cognizable claim for relief -- Where nsurer did not make election in policy to limit reimbursement to statutory schedule there was no prohibition against balance-billing pursuant to section 627.736(4)(a)5 -- Moreover, any balance-billed payments made by plaintiff are extra-contractual payments that insurer cannot forbid provider from billing -- Individualized determinations of proposed class members' compliance with demand letter requirement and reasonableness and coverage of each member's medical bills render action inappropriate for class action treatment -- Claim for declaratory relief is improper because declaratory relief is not primary relief sought and plaintiff has adequate remedy at law
VIEW OPINION

Find out more about FLW Supplement.