Case law

Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida & Planned Parenthood of Southwest & Central Florida v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 1, 2024

Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we find T.W. to be clearly erroneous. Based on our established test for assessing stare-decisis issues, we now ask whether there is a valid reason not to recede from T.W. … Even the dissenting opinion in Laird observed: “A constitutional right to privacy has been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court in . . . Roe . . . .”

Noel Plank v. State of Florida

41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 93 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 17, 2016

In order to qualify as direct criminal contempt, however, the Supreme Court clarified that the misconduct must have occurred “in open court, in the presence of the judge, [and] disturb[] the court’s business, where all … In addition, the specific procedures outlined in the rule governing indirect criminal contempt, which includes entitlement to counsel, contrasts with the absence of a specific provision establishing the entitlement to

Caylor v. State

36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 615 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 27, 2011

As in Mapps , the evidence presented in the instant case clearly demonstrates that the victim suffered from more than a single act of aggravated battery. … The unlawful killing of a human being constitutes murder in the first degree “[w]hen committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of’ any qualifying felony listed in the felony murder statute, including sexual battery

In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES FOR CERTIFIED AND COURT-APPOINTED MEDIATORS

41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 477 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 27, 2016

Rule 10.840 (Sanctions), as amended, now more clearly defines the sanctions that may be imposed against both applicants and mediators. … Such counsel may be the investigator appointed pursuant to this rule if such person is otherwise qualified.

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2005-2

34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 583 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 29, 2009

As I stated in Coday and reiterated in Lebrón, the use of special verdict forms would enable this Court “to tell when a jury has unanimously found a death-qualifying aggravating circumstance, which would both facilitate our … If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you determine it should receive

Marshall v. Crosby

911 So. 2d 1129 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 26, 2005

Robert Berland, was not qualified to perform the desired work. The State suggested that the trial court order Dr. Klass to comply with its previous order appointing him. … The Court clearly viewed the Ring decision as one of fundamental significance.

Essex Ins. Co. v. Zota

33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 425 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 26, 2008

Rather, as explained below, a well-established insurance law presumption, used in conjunction with this Court's decision in Almerico v. … They will not be interpreted to displace the common law further than is clearly necessary.

First Baptist Church of Cape Coral, Florida, Inc. v. Compass Construction, Inc.

115 So. 3d 946 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 30, 2013

The majority additionally disregards decades of controlling precedent simply because it is unfavorable to its holding and approves awards of attorney fees not actually incurred, an award of money readily and clearly in violation … However, we qualified that statement and effectively established a cap on the fee by holding that “in no case should the court-awarded fee exceed the fee agreement reached by the attorney and his client.”

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

794 So. 2d 457 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 2, 2000

Every motion to suppress evidence shall clearly-state clearly the particular evidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression, and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based. (3) Hearing. … The amendment clearly now requires a specific traverse to specific material fact or facts. 1992 Amendment.

Richard Allen Johnson v. State of Florida

135 So. 3d 1002 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 9, 2014

This Court has “established that defense counsel is entitled to rely on the evaluations - 51 - conducted by qualified mental health experts, even if, in retrospect, those evaluations … Johnson’s statement, “I don’t want to say no more” was clearly unequivocal. See Cuervo v.

Citizens of the State of Florida v. Julie Imanuel Brown, etc.

269 So. 3d 498 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 25, 2019

The CO independently requires FPL to operate the RWS and requires the extent of the hypersaline plume to be established by Continuous Surface Electromagnetic Mapping. … OPC contended that, because of the “clearly preventive orientation” of section 366.8255, the costs of complying with the CO and CA do not qualify for recovery because the harm in question has already occurred.

Troy v. State

948 So. 2d 635 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 19, 2006

The State counters that there is both direct evidence establishing Troy's presence at the scene of the attempted sexual battery and an overwhelming wealth of circumstantial evidence establishing that an attempted sexual battery … Such a process was clearly not followed during these proceedings. It is the circuit judge who has the principal responsibility for determining whether a death sentence should be imposed.

Orme v. State

896 So. 2d 725 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 24, 2005

State, 801 So.2d 59, 65 (Fla.2001) (finding that Strickland requires the establishment of both prongs to establish ineffective assistance of counsel). … (rejecting the claim that death qualifying aggravators must be alleged in the indictment and individually found by a jury), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 950 , 124 S.Ct. 392 , 157 L.Ed.2d 283 (2003).

Roberts v. State

840 So. 2d 962 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 5, 2002

This was clearly error as Judge Solomon knew that he had engaged in ex parte communication in Roberts' case, had asked the State to draft Roberts' sentencing order, and had failed to independently weigh the aggravating and … State objected, arguing that section 942.03(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which governs out-of-state subpoenas, is only applicable in criminal prosecutions or grand jury proceedings, and postconviction proceedings do not qualify

Terence Tobias Oliver v. State of Florida

42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 424 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 6, 2017

The evidence presented at trial established that Oliver and Krystal Pinson ended a two-and-a-half year relationship the month prior to the murders. … This is a qualifying felony to support a conviction for first-degree felony murder. See § 782.04(1)(a)(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2009).

Fiehe v. Householder Co.

98 Fla. 627 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 15, 1929

That the notice has been given is a state of fact which must be established before the county judge may allow the sale. … This court has also held that an order of a county judge removing an administrator is immune from collateral attack (see Hart v. Bostwick, 14 Fla. 162 ; Simpson v.

Barry Trynell Davis, Jr. v. State of Florida

42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 558 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 11, 2017

Steward was told she would be given immunity for testifying against Davis. … This Court then established the test for determining whether a Hurst error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which we summarized in Davis v.

Visiting Nurse Association of Florida, Inc. v. Jupiter Medical Center, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 10, 2014

[JMC] will not specify or otherwise limit the qualified providers that are available to the patient. 5. … The district court then acknowledged that section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009), clearly does not include illegality of a contract as a basis to vacate an arbitral award.

Snelgrove v. State

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 303 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 19, 2012

First, competent, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Snelgrove failed to establish subaverage general intellectual functioning. … “[C]ertain kinds of opinion testimony clearly are admissible — and especially qualified expert testimony— but they are not necessarily binding even if uncontroverted.

James v. State

695 So. 2d 1229 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 24, 1997

The decision as to whether a mitigating circumstance has been established is within the trial court's discretion. Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404 (Fla.1992). … At the outset, I acknowledge that there clearly is an evidentiary basis for the trial court's rejection of James' ingestion of LSD, and I give the trial judge the benefit of being the fact-finder.