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.

Antitrust -- College athletics -- Eligibility -- Injunctions -- Temporary -- Action claiming that the National Collegiate Athletic Association had violated Florida Antitrust Act after it denied athlete's request to waive the association's “Five-Year Rule,” which requires college athletes to complete their four seasons of eligibility within a five-year period -- Trial court erred in issuing a temporary injunction ordering NCAA to grant athlete's waiver and allow him to play in current athletic season -- Written order is facially invalid, and its factual findings are unsupported by competent substantial evidence -- Trial court's four-sentence legal analysis was deficient, particularly for a fact-intensive antitrust case -- It cannot be concluded that athlete would be irreparably harmed by awaiting trial where evidence established that athlete would be granted another year of eligibility if he prevailed at trial -- Athlete failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that NCAA's regulation and control over intercollegiate sports amounts to an illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce -- To establish a violation, athlete must plead and prove under a “rule of reason” analysis that an alleged restraint on balance results in anticompetitive effects that outweigh pro-competitive effects, which requires much more than showing that a restraint affects one competitor -- Furthermore, trial court's failure to make any mention of considerations of public interest alone warrants reversal -- Judges -- Bias -- Because transcript of proceedings demonstrated that judge favored athlete by raising claims and issues that athlete did not plead and advocating positions adverse to the NCAA on those unpled matters, a different judge shall be assigned to case on remand
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Contingency fee multiplier -- Hourly rate -- Trial court erred by applying a contingency fee multiplier to attorney's fee award where there was no testimony that clients would not have obtained counsel absent availability of a risk multiplier -- Awarding a contingency fee multiplier in the absence of testimony regarding the relevant market is error -- Trial court further erred by awarding an hourly rate in excess of what counsel and clients had agreed to in fee agreement where agreement did not contain a sufficient alternate fee recovery clause
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Defamation -- Tortious interference -- Arbitration -- Enforceability of arbitration clause -- Ambiguity -- Action brought against plaintiff physician's employer and clinic management company -- Trial court erred by denying defendants' motion to compel arbitration based on determination that arbitration clauses contained in plaintiff's employment agreement and management company's services agreement were fatally ambiguous -- Venue clause in employment agreement, which stated that “any action or claim arising from” that agreement “shall be brought in the courts” within Florida, was not in conflict with employment agreement's arbitration clause so as to render employment agreement fatally ambiguous -- Venue and arbitration clauses could easily be read together by interpreting the venue clause to apply only to disputes that are not submitted to arbitration -- Non-signatory -- Plaintiff was bound by terms of management services agreement where, although plaintiff was not a party to that particular agreement, plaintiff was a party to a separate asset purchase agreement which expressly incorporated the management services agreement -- Fact that arbitration clause in employment agreement required arbitration under rules of American Health Lawyers Association while clause in management services agreement required arbitration under rules of American Arbitration Association did not render clauses unenforceable where no material irreconcilable difference between those sets of rules was identified by plaintiff or trial court -- Arbitrable issues -- Trial court lacked authority to determine that plaintiff's claims were outside scope of arbitration clauses where both AHLA and AAA specifically empower arbitrator to determine issues of arbitrability -- Even if trial court had authority, it was error to determine that claims were not arbitrable simply because they sound in tort rather than breach of contract
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Negligence -- Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress -- Invasion of privacy -- Public disclosure of private facts -- Social media posts -- Photographs -- Vicarious liability -- Action by parent of accident victim asserting claims against individual emergency medical technicians and hospital arising out of incident in which EMT responding to motorcycle accident took a photo of victim's leg injury without his consent while victim was in hospital, shared photo with other employees, posted photo to his Instagram account, and tagged second EMT, who was visible in the photo and who reposted the photo to his own social media account -- Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of hospital and EMT who took photo on all claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress where plaintiff/father was seeking damages for his own emotional distress but father was not present when photo was taken and never saw the social media post because it was taken down long before plaintiff was notified about the incident -- Court declines to extend to instant case the Fifth District's decision in Williams v. City of Minneola which recognized an exception to the presence requirement in cases involving the display of pictures of “dead bodies” to persons occupying the role of spouse, child, sibling, or parent of deceased -- Accident victim was alive at time photo was taken and posted, and fact that victim was unconscious does not warrant application of Minneola -- Hospital could not be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on fact that hospital's privacy officer revealed to plaintiff the privacy breach and the steps taken to remedy it at a time when plaintiff was trying to decide whether to continue his son's life support -- Privacy officer's disclosures were not outrageous as a matter of law -- Privacy -- Privacy rights are personal in nature and can be maintained only by living individual whose privacy was invaded -- Plaintiff could not prevail on claims that his privacy was invaded where there was nothing in photo or social media post revealing identity of victim or the name of the hospital where photo was taken -- Vicarious liability -- Hospital could not be vicariously liable for second EMT's negligence in reposting photo on his social media where he was not acting in course and scope of his employment with hospital
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 -- Bail -- Bond -- Forfeiture -- Discharge -- Relief from judgment -- Trial court did not err by granting depositor's motion to set aside final judgment of forfeiture of cash bond based on determination that, under section 903.26(5)(b), discharge of forfeiture was required because defendant had been deported -- Court rejects argument that section 903.286 is controlling statute because section 903.26 does not apply to cash bonds -- Section 903.26 makes no distinction between bond posted by surety and bond posted in cash by or on behalf of a defendant -- Additionally, nothing in section 903.286 precludes discharge of forfeiture of cash bond or precludes return of balance of bond once clerk has withheld requisite amounts -- Jurisdiction -- Argument that trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter discharge order more than sixty days after motion was filed was waived where clerk did not raise argument in response to motion for discharge or in its motion to vacate order setting aside forfeiture
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Burglary of dwelling -- Consent to enter -- Evidence -- No error in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal arguing that defendant was an invitee based on victim's testimony that, prior to incident underlying burglary charge, defendant was “always welcomed” unannounced at victim's home -- Viewing evidence in light most favorable to state, victim's testimony only supported an invitation to arrive at her door, not to enter her home whenever defendant wished -- Even if victim's testimony was competent evidence of consent to enter, state met its burden of contradicting that evidence by presenting evidence of forced entry -- A rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that, despite his previous visits, defendant was not welcome to enter victim's home by violently breaking the door and threatening her life
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Appellate Procedure -- Amendment -- Criminal cases -- Sentencing -- Preservation of issues -- Defendants who have entered guilty or nolo contendere pleas
VIEW OPINION (login required)