Case law

Penthouse, Inc. v. Saba

399 So. 2d 456 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 3, 1981

(and all other county officials) would have had only qualified immunity for their acts in implementing and enforcing (executive power) such an ordinance. … The existence of qualified immunity is a question of fact and, when properly presented, cannot be resolved summarily. Sims v. Adams, 537 F.2d 829, 832 [6] (C.A. 5th 1976).

Miami-Dade County v. Pozos

242 So. 3d 540 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 6, 2018

establishes that sovereign immunity bars this action as a matter of law. … The Florida Supreme Court went on to say that, in Tucker, [w]e stressed that if orders denying summary judgment based upon claims of qualified immunity are not subject to interlocutory review, the qualified

University of Florida Board of Trustees v. Andrew

961 So. 2d 375 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 31, 2007

On appeal, Appellees established that the university’s presence in Columbia County meets the statutory requirements; therefore, venue is proper. We affirm. … The statute clearly provides that any “substantial” presence will qualify.

Columbia Hospital Corp. of South Broward v. Fain

16 So. 3d 236 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 19, 2009

A litigant in a medical malpractice case clearly qualifies as a “patient” under *241 the amendment and is entitled to discover the information. … No departure from the essential requirements of law is established.

Gustafson's Dairy, Inc. v. Phiel

681 So. 2d 786 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 30, 1996

[S]uch orders may merely establish that the trial court currently views the issue of immunity to involve unresolved factual questions as well as legal questions.") … This would be similar to the approach taken by the Supreme Court of the United States in determining the appealability of denial of summary judgments based on qualified immunity. Johnson v.

Fassy v. Crowley

884 So. 2d 359 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 10, 2004

There must be a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95-96 (Fla.1983). … The answer in this case is not clearly established. Dr.

Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Quarles & Brady, LLC, Quarles & Brady, LLP and Richard Horn

165 So. 3d 816 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 3, 2015

The dissent wrote that [t]he Florida cases, as the majority grudgingly admits, are strict with regard to what qualifies. . . . … Under the second prong of judgmental immunity, Horn had to establish he gave advice in good faith and made a diligent inquiry into Air Turbine’s potential exposure to Atlas Copco’s attorney’s fees.

City of Treasure Island v. PROVIDENT MGMT.

738 So. 2d 357 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 11, 1999

Because there were few, if any, comparable sales of such businesses to use as a benchmark for the fair market value of the business, Provident's qualified expert relied upon total capitalized net cash flow to establish a … As Provident argues, it is difficult to square this holding with a determination that total immunity exists. We have struggled with the nature of a claim for wrongful injunction. It clearly is not a claim in contract.

City of Live Oak v. Arnold

10 Fla. L. Weekly 1060 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 25, 1985

Hewiett determined that Long Street did not qualify as a "street" under the city's zoning and subdivision ordinances contained in the city code. … In order for the trier of fact to determine this issue, assuming the trial court finds liability can be established under the allegations of the complaint as presently framed ( Cf.

Tuveson v. FLORIDA GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL

11 Fla. L. Weekly 2004 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 18, 1986

.); (4) the FGCIA erroneously concluded that it was immune from suit by Tuveson; (5) the FGCIA erroneously concluded that Tuveson had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination; *792 and (6) the FGCIA erred … Looking to the fifth issue on appeal, the final order states that Tuveson failed to establish her prima facie case of discrimination by failing to show she was a member of a protected class and that she was better qualified

Hypower, Inc. v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

839 So. 2d 856 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 10, 2003

Although there is a waiver of sovereign immunity in the instant case, it is not limited. Sovereign immunity is waived in the contracts context, not by statute, but by the fact of the contract itself. … However, the qualified acceptance letter from the FDOT to Hypower extended that limitations period to 853 days. See Hankey v.

Pavolini v. Bird

769 So. 2d 410 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 30, 2000

We agree that the unique provisions of the pre-suit notice and investigation requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act (Act) which are not contained in the waiver of sovereign immunity statute clearly distinguish the decisions … There is no rule that all spouses and children of injured persons automatically qualify for a loss of consortium award or damages under 768.0415.

Mocio v. State

98 So. 3d 601 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 25, 2012

In order to resolve this question, we must determine whether the court violated “‘a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’ ” Miami-Dade Cnty. v. … Accordingly, the circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law in determining that a writ of prohibition was not a proper remedy in this case.

Bailey v. Board of County Com'rs

659 So. 2d 295 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1994

With regard to the claim of several defendants for qualified immunity, [4] the court granted some defendants qualified immunity while denying it to others. … civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. [5] The district court recited further that under Monell , unless

Wolfe v. Foreman

128 So. 3d 67 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 17, 2013

Because the Florida Supreme Court has clearly and unambiguously stated, not once, but twice, that the litigation privilege applies to all causes of actions, and specifically articulated that its rationale for applying the … At trial, Olson presented physical evidence that established that he was six miles away purchasing items at a department store during the time the three women claimed he was stalking Johnson.

Van Ness v. Independent Const. Co.

392 So. 2d 1017 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 28, 1981

On the contrary, the general conditions clearly recite that the contractor "shall be solely responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the work … qualify as a "contractor" or "statutory employer".

Gonzalez v. J.W. Cheatham LLC

125 So. 3d 942 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 29, 2013

Cheatham moved for summary judgment, asserting that the suit was barred by workers’ compensation immunity. … Although Austin Tupler contracted with independent owner-operators, such as the plaintiff, to truck the materials, Austin Tupler’s contract with Cheatham clearly contemplated that Austin Tupler would be supervising the job

Weiss v. Pratt

53 So. 3d 395 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 16, 2011

The trial court found the pulmonologist qualified as a similar health care pro *400 vider. Id. … [then] emergency medicine physicians will be qualified to testify as to virtually every specialty.” Id. at 150 .

SARASOTA COUNTY v. VENICE HMA, LLC, D/B/A VENICE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AND SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 29, 2021

Ariz, 67 So. 3d 229, 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (granting a petition for writ of prohibition because the petitioner established it was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. … McCor also likened tribal sovereign immunity to qualified immunity in civil rights cases, 19 available to review the trial court's order because the inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction

Berry v. State

400 So. 2d 80 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 3, 1981

branch, and the independent establishments of the state... ." [1] (Emphasis supplied.) … Accordingly, we join with the First District and hold that the conduct of a state attorney in the exercise of his prosecutorial duties qualifies as a discretionary governmental function the performance of which is not affected