ABOAGYE v. STATE, 387 So. 3d 397, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D984a (Fla. 1DCA 2024). Supreme Court Case No. SC2024-1038 (Aboagye v. State). Order dated March 11, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Sexual battery on child--Lewd or lascivious molestation of child under age 12--Evidence--Hearsay--Exceptions--Statements of child victim--Other crimes, wrongs, or acts--Section 90.803(23), which contains hearsay exception for reliable out-of-court statements of "a child victim" describing "any act of sexual abuse against a child" "or any offense involving an unlawful sexual act, contact, intrusion, or penetration performed in the presence of, with, by, or on the declarant child," and makes such evidence admissible "in any civil or criminal proceeding" does not require the declarant to be the victim of the charged crime being prosecuted--Trial court did not err in allowing state to present hearsay statements of child who was not victim of charged offense but was testifying as to similar fact evidence.
ANADY v. STATE, __ So.3d __, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D17a (Fla. 1DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2026-0105 (Anady v. State). Order dated May 19, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Jury instructions--Reasonable doubt--Failure to read Standard Jury Instruction 3.7 on the reasonable doubt and related matters to jury is not fundamental error and is not basis for reversal of defendant's convictions in instant case--Trial court's instructions, as well as opening statements and closing statements, made it clear that defendant was not required to prove his innocence and that burden was on state to prove elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt--Neither instruction on presumption of innocence nor a definition of reasonable doubt is constitutionally required--Conflict certified.
ANGELES-DELGADO v. BENITEZ, __ So.3d __, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D130a (Fla. 3DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0100 (Benitez v. Angeles-Delgado). Order dated August 1, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Torts--Automobile accident--Collision with bicycle--New trial--Trial court abused its discretion in finding that verdict finding no negligence on part of defendant was contrary to manifest weight of evidence--Evidence relating to defendant's negligence was conflicting, and conflict was properly resolved by jury.
CRIST v. MANHATTAN PALMS ASSOCIATION ONE, LLC, 417 So.3d 464, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1579a (Fla. 2DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-1283 (Manhattan Palms Association One, LLC v. Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller, Hillsborough County. Order dated July 20, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Torts--Public records--Sovereign immunity--Court clerks--Special duty--Negligence action alleging county clerk of court incorrectly indexed mortgage by omitting last letter of mortgagor's surname, resulting in plaintiff's unknowing purchase of encumbered property--Trial court erred by denying clerk's motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds--A clerk's obligation to maintain a general alphabetical index under section 28.222(2) is for the benefit of the general public and not any specific individual or identifiable class--Because plaintiff was utilizing index as a member of the general public, sovereign immunity bars its claim against county clerk--Clerks do not owe a special duty to every individual using public records index--Conflict certified.
DUNLAP v. STATE, 435 So.3d 224, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1051a (Fla. 6DCA 2026). Supreme Court Case No. SC2026-0905 (Dunlap v. State). Order dated September 18, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Sentencing--Violent career criminal--Qualifying offenses--Forcible felonies--No error in finding that defendant's two convictions for attempted manslaughter by act are qualifying offenses under VCC statute--Criminal attempt offense can qualify as a forcible felony under section 776.08--Attempted manslaughter by act is a forcible felony under section 776.08's catch-all provision because it cannot be committed without involving the use of physical force or violence and because attempted manslaughter by act involves a level of physical force or violence comparable to that of manslaughter which is an enumerated forcible felony--Conflict certified--Court rejects argument that VCC statute is facially unconstitutional in light of U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. U.S.--Even assuming Erlinger applies, defendant has not met his burden of showing that there are no set of circumstances under which statute would be valid--Argument that VCC statute is unconstitutional as-applied was not preserved for appellate review where issue was never raised in trial court.
EGLIN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. BAIRD, __ So.3d __, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1795a (Fla. 1DCA 2024). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0221 (Eglin Federal Credit Union v. Baird). Order dated September 4, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Contracts--Mutual assent--Arbitration--Enforceability of arbitration clause--Class action--Waiver--Class action complaint brought against credit union alleging that it was improperly assessing fees against customers--Trial court did not err in finding that arbitration provision and class action waiver which defendant had unilaterally added to the parties' original agreement were not enforceable against customers who received notice of those additions via email--Notice of the newly added provision and waiver sent via a hyperlink buried in a routine monthly account statement email, which indicated only that it would link to defendant's quarterly newsletter, failed to provide customers with reasonable notice of defendant's offer to enter new agreement--Even if customers had followed the link, the newsletter did not provide the agreement's terms--Trial court erred in finding that provision and waiver were not enforceable against customers who received notice via mail--Notice of arbitration provision and waiver which was mailed in a properly stamped and addressed envelope was sufficient to ensure customers knew they were entering an agreement to arbitrate by continuing to use their account--With regard to customers who received sufficient notice through the mail, the trial court did not err in determining that provision and waiver did not retroactively apply to claims that accrued prior acceptance of new agreement where language of agreement did not clearly state an intent to apply retroactively.
GADSON v. STATE, __ So.3d __, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2314a (Fla. 5DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-1824 (Gadson v. State). Order dated March 17, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Post conviction relief--Newly discovered evidence--Plea offer--Timeliness of motion--No error in denying newly discovered evidence claim alleging that trial counsel never conveyed a favorable plea offer--Plain language of rule 3.850(b)(1) requires that newly discovered fact be previously unknown to both the defendant and trial counsel--Counsel's knowledge of the offer precludes a newly discovered evidence claim based on an undisclosed plea offer--Conflict certified.
HAMLIN v. SHAUGHNESSY OVERLAND EXPRESS, INC., 403 So.3d 458, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D467b (Fla. 6DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0404 (Hamlin v. Shaughnessy Overland Express, Inc.) Order dated February 5, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Civil procedure--Dismissal--Failure to prosecute--Relief from judgment--Excusable neglect--No error in granting plaintiff's rule 1.540(b)(1) motion to vacate dismissal order based on excusable neglect--Court rejects argument that a rule 1.540(b)(1) motion to vacate based upon excusable neglect can never apply to orders dismissing a case for lack of prosecution in accordance with rule 1.420(e)--Conflict certified.
HICKS v. STATE, 391 So.3d 620, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1528c (Fla. 1DCA 2024). Supreme Court Case No. SC2024-1182 (Hicks v. State). Order dated September 11, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Robbery with firearm--Competency of defendant--Trial court did not err in denying motion for judgment of acquittal on robbery charge where defendant admitted he intended to burglarize home while armed and take any possessions he could carry away and admitted to turning over victim's body to take wallet so forcefully that he ripped the victim's clothing--Trial court did not fundamentally err by failing to hold a competency hearing or make a written determination of competency after ordering a competency evaluation where nothing in record provided reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was incompetent to proceed--Award of prosecution costs affirmed.
JOSEPH v. STATE, 403 So.3d 405, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D338a (Fla. 2DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0342 (Joseph v. State). Order dated January 5, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Double jeopardy--Aggravated battery with deadly weapon--Felony battery--Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and felony battery resulting in great bodily harm did not violate double jeopardy principles where defendant was charged under two separate statutes and charging document differentiated between defendant's punching and kicking of victim and defendant's stabbing of victim.
KIM v. STATE, __ So.3d__, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2226c (Fla. 6DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-1666 (Kim v. State). Order dated January 29, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Costs--Court costs--Statutory authority--Trial court violated defendant's due process rights by imposing certain court costs for indeterminable reasons--To satisfy due process, trial court must, at minimum, provide a specific explanation about what the cost assessment represents to allow a defendant to identify the basis for the costs imposed against him--Trial court is not, however, required to provide statutory or ordinance citations for the costs, as no statutory or procedural authority requires this level of detail--Conflict certified.
LEWIS v. STATE, __ So.3d __, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D930a (Fla. 4DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0745 (Lewis v. State). Order dated October 20, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Sentencing--Correction--10-20-Life statute--Mandatory minimum--Sentence of additional years beyond selected mandatory minium--No error in denying rule 3.800(a) motion asserting that defendant's sentence of thirty-five years in prison with a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years was illegal under 10-20-Life statute--No prejudice resulted from alleged sentencing error because defendant could have been sentenced to a mandatory term of imprisonment not exceeding life imprisonment--Trial court's imposition of a more lenient sentence than 10-20-Life statute authorized does not make the resulting sentence "illegal" and subject to correction under rule 3.800(a), even if sentence is erroneous as a matter of law--Conflict certified.
LINDEN v. STATE, _ So. 3d _ , 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2501a (Fla. 4DCA 2024). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0054 (Linden v. State). Order dated April 4, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. 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.
MEDLEY v. STATE, 416 So.3d 1223, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1717c (Fla. 1DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-1365 (Medley v. State). Order dated January 5, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law -- Probation revocation -- Jurisdiction -- Credit for time served -- Jail time -- Special condition requiring defendant to spend 120 days in jail with credit for time served -- Trial court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's probation where affidavits of violation were filed before probationary period expired -- Time defendant spent in jail prior to sentencing could not be credited to defendant to reduce the overall length of his probationary term -- Unless trial court expressly provides otherwise, jail credit applies only to period of incarceration and does not affect the duration of probation -- Conflict certified.
MOONEY v. COLOR LE PALAIS OF BOYNTON BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 419 So.3d 1078, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1912a (Fla. 4DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-1513 (Mooney v. Color le Palais of Boynton Beach Homeowners Association, Inc.). Order dated January 13, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Injunctions -- Real property -- Homeowners associations -- Enforcement of restrictive covenants -- Action for injunctive relief seeking to require homeowners to replace mulch in yard with sod in accordance with association declaration -- No error in granting summary judgment in favor of association -- A homeowner's association seeking an injunction to correct a violation of a restrictive covenant is not required to plead and prove there is irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law -- Breach of restrictive covenant itself is sufficient ground for interference by injunction -- Discussion of section 720.305(1) -- Statute unambiguously gives an association the right to seek relief in equity, even if an action at law is also available to redress alleged violation, and does not limit availability of equitable relief to situations where legal remedies are inadequate -- Adequate remedy at law -- Even if not applying established law and section 720.305(1), self-help provision in declaration was not an adequate remedy at law in instant case because self-help could have engendered a complicated, multi-count lawsuit by requiring association to embark on substantial horticulture project on homeowners' property against homeowners' wishes -- Conflict certified -- Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Association was entitled to prevailing party attorney's fees where homeowners voluntarily complied with association's requested relief post-suit.
PAUL v. STATE, __ So.3d __, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D715a (Fla. 4DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0478 (Paul v. State). Order dated June 13, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Jurors--Challenge--Peremptory--Question certified: Does Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co., 486 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1986), require that a party exercising a peremptory challenge know the identity of the jury panel member who will be seated if the challenge is exercised?
PEREZ-PALMA v. RODRIGUEZ, __ So.3d __, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D999b (Fla. 3DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0905 (Perez-Palma v. Rodriguez). Order dated October 22, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Paternity--Attorney's fees--Appellate--Section 742.045, which governs attorney's fees and costs in actions to determine parentage, does not apply to fees incurred in appellate proceedings--Conflict certified.
QUINTANA v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, __ So.3d __, __ Fla. L. Weekly __, FLWSUPP 3406QUIN (Fla. 11th Judicial Circuit 2026). Supreme Court Case No. SC2026-1149 (Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Quintana). Pass-through jurisdiction accepted following Third District's certification of order as one requiring immediate resolution by the Florida Supreme Court on an issue of great public importance. Insurance--Citizens Property Insurance Corporation--Arbitration--Enforceability of arbitration clause--Due process--Given the fact that mandatory arbitration provision in Citizens' policy requires an executive branch entity to resolve a dispute involving another executive branch entity, the circuit court abated Citizens' motion to compel arbitration of coverage dispute and asked the Office of the Attorney General to submit a memorandum reflecting its position on the question of whether the mandatory arbitration terms of policy, and the statutory provision enabling those terms, transgress insureds' due process rights to be free from appearance of impropriety in their dealings with the state.
ROBINSON v. STATE, __ So.3d __, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D304a (Fla. 5DCA 2024). Supreme Court Case No. SC2024-0314 (State v. Robinson). Order dated October 9, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Criminal law--Speedy trial--Expiration of period--Discharge--Question certified: Whether the holding in State v. Williams, 791 So. 2d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 2001), should be modified to clarify that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 does not establish substantive rights including the right to automatic discharge after expiration of the rule's prescribed time period?
ROGERS v. ZENGALE, __ So.3d __, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D54d (Fla. 1DCA 2024). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-0246 (Gregor v. Rogers). Order dated June 17, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Taxation--Ad valorem--Homestead exemption--Denial--Notice to property owner--Trial court erred in finding that notice requirement in §196.193(5) did not apply to homestead property tax exemptions and that, even if notice requirement did apply, the property appraiser complied with it--Comparison of notice requirements in §§ 196.193(5) and 196.151--Section 196.193(5) requires property appraisers to notify property owner of determination to deny exemption in writing on or before July 1 of relevant tax year and also requires that the notice contain certain information, including specific facts used to determine that applicant for exemption failed to meet statutory requirements--Property appraiser's contention that § 196.193(5) applies only to religious- and educational-type institutional exemptions was inconsistent with text of statute--Notice sent to property owners in instant case, which checked boxes and cited statutes, failed to provide specific investigative facts leading to decision to deny exemption--There is no conflict between more modest notice requirements of § 196.151 and more detailed notice requirements of § 196.193(5)--Remand with instructions to grant summary final judgment in favor of property owners.
SCHULTHEIS v. SCHULTHEIS, 430 So.3d 987, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D361a (Fla. 3DCA 2026). Supreme Court Case No. SC2026-0496 (Schultheis v. Schultheis). Order dated June 4, 2026. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Dissolution of marriage -- Attorney's fees -- Time spent litigating amount of fees -- Trial court's award of attorney's fees incurred by wife's non-party attorney in establishing his own fees is not supported by the plain language of section 61.16(1) and is inconsistent with legislative intent underlying both section 61.16(1) and chapter 61 as a whole -- Fee award reversed -- Conflict certified.
THORPE v. MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, __ So.3d __, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D894a (Fla. 6DCA 2025). Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-1004 (Thorpe v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center). Order dated November 18, 2025. Oral argument to be set by separate order. Torts--Medical malpractice--Jurisdiction--Non-residents--Action brought against non-resident doctors who treated and evaluated patient in New York before referring patient to a Florida provider after patient had moved--No error in dismissing action for lack of personal jurisdiction--Causing injury in state--Service activities--Non-resident doctors were not subject to personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(a)6.a.--Doctors' alleged acts of referring patient to an in-state treatment center, performing tests and rendering reports that were used by in-state providers, and sending medical bills to patient while she was in Florida did not establish that doctors were engaged in service activities within the state--Fact that record of service activity that occurred in a foreign state entered Florida does not retroactively change the location where the service activity occurred--Similarly, sending a bill to a person in Florida for a service activity that occurred in a foreign state does not change location where service activity occurred--Doctors' act of "contacting" in-state providers about doctors' diagnosis and opinions did not constitute service activity within state--An unspecified form of contact initiated outside of Florida to someone located in Florida through an unspecified medium does not constitute a "service activity within" the state under section 48.193(1)(a)6.a.--Additionally, plaintiff failed to allege a temporal connection between patient's injuries and the "service activities" of the doctors as required by the statute--Use of products, materials, or things in state--Doctors were not subject to personal jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a)6.b. where plaintiff failed to allege that injuries occurred "at or about the time" that any products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant were used in Florida--Even if temporal connection had been alleged, complaint failed to allege that products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the doctors were used in Florida--While a written report is a "thing," the writing of a report does not constitute "processing," "servicing," or "manufacturing"--Conflict certified.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P. v. WYNN, __ So.3d __, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D529a and 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1424c (Fla. 6DCA 2026). Supreme Court Case No. SC2026-0611 (Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. v. Wynn). Order dated August 3, 2026. Oral argument set by separate order. Torts -- Premises liability -- Damages -- Causation -- Evidence -- Experts -- Undisclosed opinion -- Prejudice -- Action alleging that plaintiff suffered nerve damage in her ankle after tripping on crack in pavement in defendant's parking lot -- Defendant's non-testifying expert opining that nerve damage was caused by a preexisting condition for first time during second deposition after plaintiff had produced new medical records on last day of discovery period -- Trial court did not err by excluding opinion of defendant's expert based on fact that new opinion was not disclosed by the deadline set forth in the case management order -- Where a party fails to disclose an opinion of its expert witness by the deadline set forth in the applicable case management order, the trial court is permitted to strictly enforce the case management order and exclude the undisclosed opinion without considering whether the other party would be prejudiced by the introduction of the undisclosed opinion -- Conflict certified -- While plaintiff produced new medical records after the parties' deadline to disclose changes in their experts' opinions, defendant did not file a motion in the trial court to extend the deadline -- Had defendant raised issue below, trial court could have considered it and extended the deadline or taken other appropriate action -- Plaintiff was not required to contemporaneously object to expert's new opinion during deposition -- Plaintiff was permitted to object for first time at trial to any part of the deposition for any reason that would require the exclusion of the testimony if expert were present and testifying