THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Municipal corporations -- Action by homeowners and neighborhood association against city seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to require city to prosecute an enforcement action against another property owner -- Trial court properly dismissed one count of complaint and should have dismissed other count -- Under doctrine of separation of powers, city's discretion to file, prosecute, abate, settle, or voluntarily dismiss a building and zoning enforcement action is a purely executive function that cannot be supervised by the courts, absent the violation of a specific constitutional provision or law
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Standard jury instructions -- Criminal -- Amendment
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Standard jury instructions -- Criminal -- Amendment
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Bars and lounges -- Failure to provide adequate security -- Action against restaurant/beach bar by plaintiff who was attacked by one or more intoxicated patrons who had been consuming alcohol at restaurant for several hours prior to “last call” when attack occurred -- Evidence -- Foreseeability -- Prior incidents -- Trial court erred in ruling that only 12 of 60 prior incidents occurring in and around restaurant would be admissible at trial -- Ruling that only those incidents involving damage to persons or property starting on, ending on, or involving the premises would be admitted reflected misinterpretation of Florida law as to prior incidents which are probative of foreseeability -- Incidents were relevant to defendant's knowledge of a “likelihood of disorderly conduct by third persons in general which may endanger the safety of patrons,” and ultimate weight accorded those incidents in determining foreseeability was issue for jury -- Error not harmless given sheer number of relevant excluded events, fact that jury was deprived of knowing about these other incidents and that plaintiff's expert witness was prevented from discussing the incidents and providing an opinion based upon those incidents, and fact that defendant improperly took advantage of erroneous ruling by repeatedly referring to its business as a family restaurant
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Jurisdiction -- Non-residents -- Cruise ship doctor -- Substantial and not isolated activity within state -- Trial court erred in denying motion to dismiss action against defendant cruise ship doctor who resides on cruise ship for lack of jurisdiction where defendant was a British citizen who does not live in Florida, does not own real property in Florida, and who is not licensed to practice in Florida -- Facts that defendant entered into employment agreement in Florida with Florida-based cruise lines, attends annual medical conferences in Florida, received advance cardiac life support recertification in Florida, vacations from time to time in Florida, has bank accounts in Florida, and works aboard a cruise ship that embarks/disembarks at Florida port one day a week are insufficient to establish general jurisdiction on basis that defendant engages in substantial and not isolated activity within state -- Fact that defendant may treat someone in Florida territorial waters while coming into or going out of port does not confer general jurisdiction
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Releases -- Action against owner of Go-Kart track, alleging that defendant's employee negligently increased Go-Kart speed during a race, causing plaintiff to sustain injuries when she lost control and crashed into railing -- Error to enter summary judgment for defendant on basis of waiver and release form signed by plaintiff -- When considered in its totality, it is not clear that the negligence in question was intended to be within the scope of the release
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Medical malpractice -- Trial court erred by denying plaintiff's motion to amend complaint to conform the pleadings to evidence presented at trial and to include comparative negligence when defendants withdrew the affirmative defense of comparative negligence after the evidence was presented -- By presenting evidence relevant to decedent's drug and alcohol use to attack causation, but without permitting jury to consider decedent's comparative negligence, defendants created a “take it or leave it” situation similar to contributory negligence, which is contrary to Florida law and public policy -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- Trial court erred in taking judicial notice and allowing into evidence Department of Children and Families shelter reports containing findings regarding decedent's alcohol and drug use -- It was error to admit the shelter orders containing hearsay using only judicial notice and not pursuant to applicable hearsay exceptions
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Adversary preliminary hearing -- Defendant was entitled to adversary preliminary hearing where more than 21 days elapsed between date of arrest and date information was filed -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in denying defendant's motion for adversary preliminary hearing on ground that motion was not filed before information was filed -- Subsequent filing of information does not eliminate defendant's entitlement to adversary preliminary hearing
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Double jeopardy -- Separate convictions for both burglary with an assault and aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony violate prohibition against double jeopardy -- Separate convictions for aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and misdemeanor battery violate prohibition against double jeopardy -- Sentencing -- Vindictiveness -- Claim of vindictive sentence is an error that occurs during the sentencing process, not an error in the sentencing order -- Imposition of a vindictive sentence constitutes fundamental error, and may be raised for first time on appeal -- Under totality of circumstances, imposition of sentence of forty years after state had initially offered a twenty-five-year plea was not vindictive
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Habeas corpus -- Sexually violent offender -- Involuntary civil commitment -- Trial court improperly concluded a habeas petition was not the proper vehicle for petitioner to seek relief from alleged constitutionally unacceptable standards of care he is receiving in facility owned by private enterprise under auspices of Department of Children and Families, deeming his petition as one seeking a writ of mandamus and summarily denying it as not having a clear legal right to the relief requested -- A habeas petition is the proper method to seek this type of relief -- Allegation is facially sufficient to require a response from DCF -- Claim that for-profit operator's own psychologists have conflict of interest when they prepare his annual evaluation because operator has profit motive for keeping petitioner committed is not cognizable in a habeas petition under the applicable statute, because it does not relate to a condition of his confinement; hence trial court properly summarily denied this portion of the petition -- Defendant does have the right to an independent evaluator
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Juveniles -- Sentencing -- Cruel and unusual punishment -- Life imprisonment -- Non-homicide offense -- Trial court improperly denied claim that life sentences on non-homicide convictions are illegal, reasoning that when a defendant is sentenced on a homicide at the same time, such a sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment -- In Graham v. Florida, United States Supreme Court created a bright-line rule that a defendant who is under eighteen when non-homicide offense is committed cannot be sentenced to life without parole
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Murder -- Robbery -- Possession of short-barreled shotgun -- Evidence -- Statements of defendant -- Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress confession where, after waiving Miranda rights, defendant's several statements that he wished to stop talking and go home constituted an unambiguous reassertion of his right to silence prior to detectives' restarting the interrogation, resulting in the confession -- Error was not harmless, as confession was the most damaging evidence presented at trial
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Residence -- Warrant -- Probable cause for issuance of warrant -- Omission of material facts in affidavit -- Trial court erred in granting motion to suppress on grounds that detective's failure to inform issuing judge that a flyover of defendant's property did not reveal evidence of cannabis growing in the back yard negated a finding of probable cause -- Search warrant affidavit contained sufficient facts to support issuing judge's determination of probable cause, including anonymous tip, contraband obtained from defendant's trash bin on two occasions, privacy fence lined with green fabric, and prior drug convictions
VIEW OPINION (login required)