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.

Arbitration -- Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- No error in denying plaintiff's petition to be granted attorney's fees arising from arbitration where record shows that arbitrator was presented with multiple requests for attorney's fees and made discretionary decision not to award them -- Under current version of section 682.11(2), an arbitrator is permitted to decide attorney's fees issues as long as a statutory or contractual basis exists for recovery of attorney's fees -- Plaintiff's choice to arbitrate its claims pursuant to a clause in its contracts with defendants and include requests for attorney's fees in all filings to the arbitrator is incompatible with plaintiff's belated assertion that it intended to have trial court decide attorney's fees -- Although arbitration award did not specifically indicate that attorney's fees issue had been considered, plaintiff's remedy was to make a motion to the arbitrator to modify, correct or clarify the award under section 682.10
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- Exceptions -- Business records -- Billing records -- Appeal from judgment awarding over $17 million in attorney's fees and costs to party that prevailed in long-running action between Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and defendant who was found liable for various acts related to misappropriation of public funds for construction of airport -- Award of attorney's fees affirmed -- Award of costs reversed where cost judgment simply stated that court “considered” Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions and agreed with plaintiff's recommended award in totality without addressing defendant's specific objections to award of certain categories of costs that would ordinarily be nontaxable -- Authentication of business records -- Affidavit of government minister proffered by plaintiff was sufficient to lay foundation for admission of attorney fee billing records where affiant attested that he oversaw case in both his current and former position and had personal knowledge of contents of fee records and government's recordkeeping practices; that he was familiar with payments made by government and that records accurately reflected those payments; and that records were kept in course of plaintiff's regularly conducted business activities -- Amount of fees -- Trial court made sufficient findings to justify its exercise of discretion and its decision to find plaintiff's expert more persuasive given circumstances of case and the lack of underlying data available for defendant's expert -- Trial court specifically addressed defendant's objections, including objections that certain hours were duplicative, noting that even if hours cited by defendant were duplicative, they were not unreasonably duplicative
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Guardianships -- Attorney's fees -- Counsel for ward -- Discovery -- Psychotherapist-patient privilege -- Privacy -- Medical records -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by requiring that ward's court-appointed attorney, as part of her application for fees for services rendered to ward, respond to interrogatories which required her to disclose to guardian, who opposed the application, attorney's mental health treatment records that were irrelevant to claims or defenses at issue and privileged under Florida law -- Attorney's responses to deposition questions concerning whether attorney had previously seen a psychiatrist did not open door or create legally cognizable nexus between requested mental health discovery and any claim or defense at issue -- Order quashed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Insured's action against insurer -- Conditions precedent -- Presuit notice -- Necessity -- Trial court erred by dismissing insured's action for failure to file pre-suit notice of intent to initiate litigation -- Statutory pre-suit notice requirement did not apply because insured's policy had existed before statutory requirement went into effect -- Section 627.70152 does not apply retroactively where there is no clear legislative expression of retroactive intent -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Sheriff -- Sovereign immunity -- Damages -- Setoff -- In awarding damages against sheriff in trial regarding officer-involved vehicle accident, trial court erred by applying setoff for sheriff's prior payments against the jury verdict rather than against the sovereign immunity damages cap under section 768.28(5) -- Applying setoff to jury's verdict would increase a sovereign defendant's waiver of immunity in direct contravention of statute -- Interest -- Postjudgment -- Trial court did not err by including postjudgment interest in the judgment
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Sheriffs -- Duty of care -- Sovereign immunity -- Summary judgment -- Appeals -- Non-final orders -- Action alleging that deputy sheriffs negligently enabled an intoxicated person to drive away from the scene of one crash by calling a tow truck to place driver's inoperable vehicle back in operation, after which driver caused a second crash which killed decedent -- Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review portion of summary judgment order determining that deputies owed a duty of care to decedent -- Trial court did not err by denying sheriff's motion for summary judgment on sovereign immunity grounds -- Discussion of sovereign immunity and the Evangelical Brethren test -- Deputies' affirmative actions of calling a tow truck to extricate intoxicated driver's vehicle from the ditch and then directing him to drive away, while expressly denying driver's request to remain on the roadside to regain his faculties, constituted category IV functions of providing general services for the welfare of citizens -- Unlike a law enforcement officer's decision of whether to enforce the law by arresting an intoxicated driver, which is a discretionary function immune from suit, an officer's action of directing an intoxicated person to drive is an operational function that is not immune
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 -- Kidnapping -- Information -- Defects -- Information which mistakenly stated that defendant “attempted to” kidnap victim -- Defendant's conviction for kidnapping is affirmed -- Defendant was not prejudiced by the “attempt to” language in body of information where defendant was on notice of the essential elements, trial evidence supported finding that defendant completed the crime, and there is no risk of double jeopardy -- Because there was no prejudice, mistake in information did not constitute fundamental error
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Jurors -- Challenges -- Peremptory -- Trial court abused its discretion in denying two peremptory juror challenges based on racial and gender bias where record provides no support to trial court's conclusion that defense's explanations for challenges were pretextual -- Trial court misapplied Melbourne multi-step process in finding that defense's explanations for use of peremptory challenge were pretextual -- Record is devoid of any relevant circumstances to find defense's stated race-neutral reasons for the strike pretextual or other than genuine -- New trial required
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Post conviction relief -- Denial -- Opportunity to amend -- When denying defendant's facially insufficient motion, trial court erred by failing to enter a nonfinal order allowing defendant to amend the motion as required by rule 3.850(h)(2) -- Rule 3.850(h)(2) does not permit an exception to the requirement when a trial court determines that an opportunity to amend is unnecessary because no such amendment could be made in good faith
VIEW OPINION (login required)

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
VIEW OPINION (login required)