Case law

Florida Highway Patrol, etc. v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, etc.

Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 23, 2020

We also agree with FHP that, precisely because sovereign immunity includes immunity from suit, entitlement to sovereign immunity should be established as early in the litigation as possible. … where a legal duty has been established.

Department of Educ. v. Roe

679 So. 2d 756 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 18, 1996

her motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. … DOE argues that the public policy that animates sovereign immunity is similar to the public policy that animates qualified immunity.

Gentile v. Bauder

718 So. 2d 781 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 24, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … probable cause under clearly established precedent.

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 691 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

There is an important difference between a departure from the essential requirements of law where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law and a case that involves an issue of law where the law … Without such controlling precedent, we cannot conclude that either court violated a ‘clearly established principle of law.’ ” (quoting Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So.2d 979, 982-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))).

Tucker v. Resha

648 So. 2d 1187 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 10, 1994

Her petition relied in large measure on the established federal appellate mechanism for interlocutory review of orders denying summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. [2] The district court determined that there … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Keck v. Eminisor

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 697 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

on the issue of qualified immunity.” … We analyzed “the nature of the rights involved,” concluding that immunity from suit involved in qualified immunity required that interlocutory review be available to an individual whose claim of qualified immunity was denied

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions

132 So. 3d 786 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 27, 2014

We also conclude that the ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161(1) because they are not clearly and conclusively defective. … This limited immunity is necessary because, in the absence of such immunity, the mere act of prescribing marijuana, a controlled substance under Florida law, would result in civil or criminal liability or sanctions, which

DelMonico v. Traynor

38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 14, 2013

A qualified privilege requires the plaintiff to establish express malice. … Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.2007), characterized Myers as establishing “the principle of the litigation privilege in Florida, essentially providing legal immunity for actions that occur in judicial proceedings.”

Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Housing

737 So. 2d 494 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 10, 1999

In conjunction with the statewide program, the Legislature established a fund to clean sites contaminated by dry cleaning solvents. [2] The Act provides that the owners or operators of dry cleaning establishments, who could … CONCLUSION We find that the Legislature has clearly expressed its intent through the language of the statute as well as the structure and purpose of the Act to apply the immunity provisions found in subsections 376.3078(3

Conklin v. Cohen

287 So. 2d 56 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 5, 1973

Furthermore, it is clear that the owners did not qualify as "contractors" or "statutory employers," within the foregoing definitions thereof. … [owner's] negligence," clearly stated a cause of action against the owners, and, as clearly, were sufficient to withstand the owners' Motion to Dismiss. II.

Feldman v. Glucroft

522 So. 2d 798 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 4, 1988

There is an absolute, rather than a qualified, immunity from defamation actions in all judicial and legislative hearings; moreover, this type of immunity applies in many other professional, licensing, and administrative proceedings … We accept the legislative determination that, without this type of qualified immunity, a viable health care peer review process would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions (Financial Impact Statement)

Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 27, 2014

When read together, the title and summary are still misleading because they do not clearly and unambiguously disclose to voters that those with “conditions” would qualify for medical marijuana under the amendment’s text … And while the definition in the amendment’s text of what qualifies for medical marijuana as a “Debilitating Medical Condition” includes a specific list of diseases that are clearly “debilitating” (such as cancer,

Abel Limones, Sr. v. School District of Lee County

40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 182 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 2, 2015

Users are clearly “immune from civil liability for any harm resulting from the use or attempted use” of an AED. § 768.1325(3), Fla. Stat. … Of course, as McCain acknowledges, some facts must be established to determine whether a duty exists, such as the identity of the parties, their relationship, and whether that relationship qualifies as a special relationship

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions

181 So. 3d 471 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 17, 2015

Does not immunize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana. … As such, wé have explained that we are obliged to uphold a proposed amendment unless it is “clearly and conclusively defective.”

Holly v. Auld

450 So. 2d 217 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 3, 1984

Thus, we have a clearly expressed legislative intent in subsection 768.40(2) that malice or fraud is redressable by civil action. … This would be contrary to the well-established rule that malice or fraud strips an otherwise privileged communication of its immunity and would raise serious constitutional questions which I address below.

Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County

38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 445 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 27, 2013

As we explained in Citizens Property Insurance, “[v]ery few categories of non-final orders qualify for the use of th[e] extraordinary writ” of common law certiorari. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 104 So.3d at 351-52. … The Court held that sovereign immunity did not apply because the action was clearly operational and could not be considered as either policy or planning, especially when the actions taken were actually contrary to adopted

Jared Bretherick v. State of Florida

40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 411 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 9, 2015

Even in cases involving § 1983 immunity, however, the individuals claiming immunity carry the initial burden of establishing that they were qualified for immunity at the time of the incident. See, e.g., Gentile v. … While we recognize that the Stand Your Ground law is intended to be an immunity from prosecution as opposed to just an affirmative defense, the immunity is not a blanket immunity, but rather, requires the establishment that

Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Yamuni

529 So. 2d 258 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 2, 1988

The record clearly establishes that: (1) there was never a judicial determination of child abuse; (2) HRS was not awarded actual or constructive custody of the child; (3) there was no judicial determination that the child … If the Florida Legislature wants to establish a policy requiring the state to pay damages for injuries due to child abuse, it clearly has the authority to do so.

& SC15-2002 Advisory Opinion to The Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions & Advisory Opinion to The Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions (FIS)

Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 17, 2015

(5) Nothing in this section requires the violation of federal law or purports to give immunity under federal law. … Does not immunize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana.

Tobkin v. Jarboe

710 So. 2d 975 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 28, 1998

Florida law." [2] The Commission further explained in its commentary that it recommended a rule providing qualified immunity. … I believe that the public, attorneys, and the grievance process are best served by providing a complainant with qualified rather than absolute immunity from civil liability for defamation.