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.

Mobile home parks -- Homeowners associations -- Class actions -- Action brought by two distinct mobile homeowners' associations on geographically proximate land owned by defendant alleging unreasonable rent increases -- Trial court erred by certifying claims as a class action under rule 1.222 -- Rule 1.222, which allows a mobile homeowners' association to bring a class action in its name on behalf of all homeowners concerning matters of common interest, does not allow multiple mobile homeowners' associations to bring a single class action under the rule -- Rule only allows one association to bring a given claim as a class action on behalf of its own members -- Remand for trial court to assess whether each association may maintain each of their respective counts as a Rule 1.222 class action, after which trial court may exercise its discretion as to whether any or all of the claims it certifies as a class action should or should not be consolidated
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Municipal corporations -- Sovereign immunity -- Operational/planning-level activities -- Action against city arising from head-on collision that occurred on street within city -- Trial court did not err by denying city's motion to dismiss second amended complaint where plaintiffs' negligence claim was not based on city's decision to build road or its design of road, but its failure to construct road as designed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Corporations -- Fraudulent inducement -- Shareholder liability -- Collateral estoppel -- Action alleging that two corporations and their sole shareholder had fraudulently induced plaintiff to accept employment as general counsel for the corporations -- Trial court erred by entering final judgment against shareholder based on collateral estoppel resulting from default judgments entered against the two corporate co-defendants -- Corporate defendants' admission of allegations resulting from default judgments did not collaterally estop shareholder from contesting allegations in complaint -- Plaintiff could not rely upon the technical admissions of corporate defendants to pierce corporate veil because those admissions were made by parties the law recognizes as separate and distinct from owner -- Additionally, pursuant to supreme court's decision in Dade County v. Lambert, the default of one defendant does not operate as an admission of such allegation as against a contesting co-defendant
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Negligence -- Sexual abuse of child -- Limitation of actions -- Action alleging that defendants' individual and collective negligence caused plaintiff to become a victim of sexual battery while a minor in foster care -- Trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of defendants based on determination that, because plaintiff's claims sound in negligence and not intentional or criminal acts, the claims were barred by four-year statute of limitations set forth in section 95.11(3)(a) -- Discussion of sections 95.11(3)(a) and 95.11(9) -- The phrase “related to” in section 95.11(9) is properly understood to require plaintiff's claims to have a connection with the alleged sexual battery committed against her when she was less than sixteen years old -- In instant case, the connection between the claimed negligence of defendants and the alleged sexual abuse suffices for purposes of section 95.11(9) such that plaintiff's claims can be brought at any time -- Statute does not limit the nature of the actions permitted under the statute or the defendants against whom an action may be brought -- Language is broad enough to include causes of action against a non-perpetrator if it is related to a sexual battery
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 -- Attempted second degree murder with firearm -- Jury instructions -- Depraved mind -- Provocation -- Attorney's fees -- Appointed counsel -- Trial court did not commit fundamental error by failing to define a depraved mind or by omitting defense of provocation when instructing jury on attempted second degree murder -- Although depraved mind was key element in dispute at trial given defendant's claim that he acted in self-defense, supreme court has held that failure to define term does not create fundamental error -- Because provocation instruction went to a defense and not to an essential element of the crime charged, failure to instruct on this issue could not be raised for first time on appeal -- Attorney's fees -- Imposition of $15,000 legal services fee based solely on fee that Justice Administrative Commission would pay for type of case was arbitrary and contrary to section 938.29 -- Section 27.5304, which sets forth framework for JAC to pay private court-appointed attorneys, does not apply to court's determination of the amount an indigent defendant would pay that attorney -- On remand, trial court directed to reduce lien to statutory minimum or provide defendant with notice and evidentiary hearing to address any amount in excess of that minimum
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Vehicle -- Protective sweep -- Plain view -- Under totality of circumstances, trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress contraband found in defendant's vehicle based on protective sweep and plain view exceptions to warrant requirement where evidence showed that officers, who were surveilling defendant to effectuate an arrest warrant, had observed controlled substances in defendant's vehicle after opening passenger doors to ensure no other occupants were in the vehicle after defendant and a known passenger had exited the vehicle and were taken into custody
VIEW OPINION (login required)