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.

Administrative law -- Torts -- Birth-related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan -- Appeals -- Jurisdiction -- Separation of powers -- Appeal from administrative law judge's conclusion that injury suffered by infant was not a birth-related neurological injury, brought by medical center and university board of trustees that intervened in the administrative proceedings -- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction -- Appellate court's jurisdiction to review administrative order depends on whether function of the agency involved is judicial or quasi-judicial -- If it is not, it is simply executive in nature, and decision is not reviewable by appellate courts -- Intervenors did not invoke ALJ's quasi-judicial authority by asking ALJ to independently adjudicate their contention that infant's injury was covered by Plan -- ALJ's order was, at best, advisory, with no binding legal effect beyond the boundaries of the executive branch -- Detailed legal analysis supporting decision to dismiss appeal
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Sanctions -- Justiciable issues -- Claim or defense not supported by material facts or applicable law -- Safe harbor -- Trial court erred by granting counsel's ore tenus request to award counsel attorney's fees “on its own initiative” pursuant to section 57.105(1) where counsel did not comply with safe harbor provision in 57.105(4) -- While section 57.105(1) provides that reasonable attorney's fees shall be awarded “upon court's initiative,” record did not support that trial court awarded fees on its own initiative
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Estates -- Real property -- Homestead -- Waiver -- Abandonment -- Trial court erred in denying homestead status for decedent's former residence based on determination the decedent abandoned property when she relocated to a nursing home without conducting an evidentiary hearing -- Evidentiary hearing was necessary where record was insufficient to determine whether decedent intended to abandon the property or involuntarily ceased to reside in it
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Assignee's action against insurer -- County court erred by awarding assignee attorney's fees and costs under section 627.428(1) for fees incurred in an earlier-filed circuit court case which was dismissed following insurer's challenge to circuit court's subject-matter jurisdiction -- Discussion of section 627.428(1) and supreme court's decision in Wollard v. Lloyd's & Cos. of Lloyds's -- Assignee was not entitled to fees incurred in circuit court case because circuit court case was not a “suit in which recovery was had” -- Court declines invitation to expanding confession of judgment doctrine to situation at issue because doing so would ignore statute's limitation of fee awards to the suit in which recovery is had -- Court rejects alternative argument that fee award was proper because insurer “unreasonably withheld payment under the policy” -- While Wollard court referenced such a “requirement” as a condition precedent to the award of attorney's fees, the “requirement” was mentioned in obiter dictum and has no precedential value
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Judges -- Certification of need for additional judges -- Determination of need for additional county court, circuit court, and Sixth District Court of Appeal judgeships -- Acknowledgment of excess judicial capacity in Second District Court of Appeal
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Mortgage foreclosure -- Limitation of actions -- Statute of repose -- Tolling of period -- Equitable estoppel -- Trial court erred by entering final judgment of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff based on determination that, pursuant to doctrine of equitable estoppel, defendant's post-maturity payments had tolled the limitation period of section 95.281(1) -- Doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply to toll the five-year time period plaintiff had to file its claim where defendant took no action acknowledging the validity of the mortgage at any time after the five-year limitation period had run, and plaintiff had nearly a year between defendant's final payment and the expiration of the limitation period to file a claim
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 -- Carrying concealed weapon by convicted felon -- Deadly weapon -- Dismissal -- Defendant charged with violation of section 790.23 after carrying a concealed machete into a supermarket -- Trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss based on conclusion the machete was not an “other deadly weapon” under section 790.001 because it was “not being used in a dangerous or threatening manner” -- Initial analysis as to whether an object is an “other deadly weapon” under the concealed weapon statute at issue is guided by the object's design and construction, not its use -- Whether defendant's machete was a deadly weapon that could not be carried concealed by a convicted felon under section 790.23 is a question for the jury
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Civil restitution lien -- Entitlement -- Constitutionality -- Trial court erred by denying Department of Corrections' motion to impose civil restitution lien based on determination that department was violating prisoner's equal protection rights by attempting to use lien as a retaliatory measure or preemptive setoff in response to prisoner's civil rights action against the department -- Department was entitled to a civil restitution lien order in amount provided by section 960.293 where record clearly established that prisoner incurred civil liability for damages and losses after his conviction for a life felony -- Based on text of statute, entry of lien order is a ministerial duty, and the Fourteenth Amendment challenge was beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon trial court at that point in procedural posture -- Furthermore, because prisoner's civil rights action was resolved in favor of department, any consideration of constitutionality of lien as a setoff was rendered moot
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Community control -- Revocation -- Standard conditions -- Trial court erred by revoking defendant's community control based upon violations of standard conditions which were not orally pronounced at sentencing or included in written sentencing order -- Trial court's statement at plea hearing that defendant would be subject to substantial prison time if he violated the “terms and conditions of your community control or probation” was not sufficient to alert the defendant that he was subject to terms other than those which were part of his plea agreement and specifically announced at the sentencing hearing -- Probation officer could not unilaterally impose standard conditions by reading them to defendant after sentencing
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Driving under influence -- Evidence -- Blood alcohol level -- Relevance -- Trial court abused its discretion by excluding defendant's expert's testimony concerning defendant's probable BAL at time of his arrest based on determination that evidence was not relevant because defendant was charged with “normal faculties” impairment under section 316.193(1)(a), not presumptive impairment based on blood- or breath-alcohol level under section 316.193(1)(b) or (c) -- Testimony was relevant as it went directly to issue of whether defendant's alleged impairment of normal faculties was due to the influence of alcohol -- Court rejects argument that expert's testimony would have been too confusing for jury absent instruction on legal significance of BALs and the legal presumption of impairment -- Typical juror is unlikely to need a special instruction to understand expert medical testimony concerning the correlation between BAL and the impairment of normal faculties relating to walking, talking, and driving -- Error was not harmless
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Correction -- Prison releasee reoffender -- Qualifications -- Defendant is not entitled to relief on his claim that his PRR sentence was illegal because he committed offenses following release from jail, not prison -- Supreme court's decision in State v. Lewars does not apply retroactively and cannot provide basis for post conviction relief of any kind in cases where PRR sentence became final before it was decided -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sexual activity with minor -- Use of two-way communications device in furtherance of crime -- Venue -- Determination by judge/jury -- Sentencing -- Sexual predators -- Scoresheet errors -- Trial court did not err in denying motion for judgment of acquittal on charge of unlawful use of two-way communications device which was based on argument that state failed to present evidence supporting venue in Alachua County -- Charge may be tried in county in which dissemination originated, dissemination was made, or in which any act necessary to consummate offense occurred, and evidence showed that victim was in Alachua County when she received the communications from defendant -- Question certified: Should the question of whether the state has proven that venue was proper in the county where trial occurs be answered by the jury? If so, should the jury be instructed that it should not consider whether the state has proven the defendant's guilt if it finds that the state has not proven proper venue? -- Sentencing -- Trial court properly designated defendant a sexual predator, despite state's concession of error, after concluding that defendant's prior Colorado conviction under statute prohibiting sexual contact on child under age 18 by one in a position of trust was sufficiently similar to corresponding Florida law to serve as a qualifying prior conviction -- Purpose and intent of Sexual Predators Act leads to conclusion that phrase “violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction” should not be read to exclude designation merely because an out-of-state law defining a sex crime can possibly be violated in a situation where a similar Florida law might not apply -- Conflict certified with Montgomery v. State -- Criminal Punishment Code -- Scoresheet -- Prior convictions -- For purposes of calculating sentence, Colorado crime is not “analogous or parallel” to crime prohibited by section 794.011(8)(b) -- Scoresheet error was harmless where trial court explicitly ruled that it would have imposed same sentence regardless of how prior conviction for sex offense against a minor was calculated
VIEW OPINION (login required)