Case law

State v. Mitrani

19 So. 3d 1065 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 2, 2009

Consequently, the trial court’s order violates clearly established legal principles that would cause substantial prejudice to the State. … Entitlement to the issuance of a writ depends on the State demonstrating (1) that the trial court's ruling violated a clearly established legal principle and (2) that the ruling results in material injustice. State v.

R.L. Haines Construction, LLC v. Santamaria

161 So. 3d 528 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 19, 2014

Haines was the decedent’s "statutory employer” entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (2010). . … Haines's contentions that Appellees failed to establish the other elements required by section 440.11(1 )(b)2.

JOSEPH CASTELLANO, M. D. v. DAVID HALPERN, M. D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 29, 2023

Next, we must determine whether Castellano has shown that the trial court departed from clearly established law. … A departure from clearly established law can be shown by the misapplication of the plain language in a statute. Gonzalez, 15 So. 3d at 39.

Harris and Company Advertising, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba

127 So. 2d 687 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 2, 1961

"`A study of the law of sovereign immunity reveals the existence of two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly established. … This shows clearly that such activity is not governmental in character.

Florida Department of Health, Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Courtney Coppola, in her official capacity as Director of the Office of Medical Marijuana Use v. Florigrown, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Voice of Freedom, Inc., d/b/a Florigrown

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 9, 2019

demonstrate [] that such registration would result in unsafe use of medical marijuana by qualifying patients. … The Medical Marijuana Amendment 2 provides immunity from criminal sanctions and civil liability for the medical use of marijuana, but only when it is used “in compliance with [the Amendment].” Art. X, § 29(a), Fla.

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Lewis Tein, P.L.

227 So. 3d 656 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 9, 2017

Because neither exception to tribal immunity has been established in this case, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Miccosukee Tribe’s motion to dismiss. … P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi) (“Appeals to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders are limited to those that . . . determine . . . that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to qualified immunity.”).3 “The issue

Cohen-Ager, Inc. v. State

12 Fla. L. Weekly 836 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 24, 1987

Here the record reveals no similar facts that would qualify as a resulting trust. … Where a political subdivision of the state is immune from taxation the non-immune party to the transaction is still liable for the tax. See Rule 12B-402(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.

Espindola v. State

855 So. 2d 1281 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 22, 2003

This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. … , within 48 hours after establishing permanent or temporary residence in this state.

TREVOR DOOLEY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

268 So. 3d 880 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 3, 2019

who qualifies under either section 776.012(1) or 776.013(3). . . . .... … Section 776.012(1) provides another means of obtaining immunity for individuals who would not qualify for immunity under section 776.013(3).

Fong v. Forman

105 So. 3d 650 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 30, 2013

Judges enjoy absolute immunity for acts performed in the course of their judicial capacities unless they clearly act without jurisdiction. Id. at 83 . … We find Fuller to be directly on point and consistent with the established principle that a quasi-judicial official carrying out the directive of a judge is protected from suit by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Latam Investments, LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP

88 So. 3d 240 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 19, 2011

The Supreme Court also emphasized: It is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending.... … LatAm suggests that the Supreme Court might adopt Judge Warner’s dissenting opinion, which would grant only a qualified immunity in such situations. Id. at 8-13 .

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm. v. William Daws, Jr. and Ouida Gershon

256 So. 3d 907 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 16, 2018

In the Order on Evidentiary Hearing and Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion, the trial court found that the credible testimony clearly and convincingly established that deer dog hunting days invade and interfere with Appellees … continued, temporary actions of the same character may also qualify as a taking.”

Montanez v. State

24 So. 3d 799 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 6, 2010

Yet even assuming Montanez did establish irreparable harm that could not be remedied on postjudgment appeal, he has not established that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. … There must be a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Housing Auth. of Tampa v. Burton, 874 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins.

Welsh v. Metropolitan Dade Cty.

366 So. 2d 518 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 23, 1979

I The first issue presented for review is whether the complaint herein was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Clearly, it was not. … This clearly means that the plaintiff must still plead and prove a recognized cause of action against the county under the state's established principles of tort law in order to recover.

Surette v. Galiardo

323 So. 2d 53 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 21, 1975

Our review of the present record does not reflect that the privileged character of the document was clearly established so as to bring the report within the protection recognized in Sligar v. Tucker, supra . … of the language contained in sec. 455.06, infra. [3] In this regard the facts are clearly distinguishable from the decision in Arnold v.

PATRICK MICHAEL LANGEL v. STATE OF FLORIDA

255 So. 3d 359 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 5, 2018

The statute creates new legal rights for those asserting a claim of self-defense immunity − by making it easier to establish the right to immunity − and imposes new legal burdens on the state to maintain a prosecution. … The 2017 amendment altered a legal standard, the quantum of proof required to establish immunity from prosecution.

Ramcharitar v. Derosins

35 So. 3d 94 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 12, 2010

Kolb, 543 So.2d 732 (Fla.1989) (subsequent legislatures, in the guise of “clarification” cannot nullify retroactively what a prior legislature clearly intended). State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. … Consequently, a subsequent enactment could not impair the substantive rights of the parties established by this contractual relationship.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v.

Hambley v. STATE, DEPT. OF NAT. RESOURCES

459 So. 2d 408 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 14, 1984

However, Shields, acting as a state official in his executive capacity to enforce *411 the law, enjoys only a qualified immunity. … Florida Power Corporation, 402 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). [5] We are not, by this, holding that Hambley has set forth sufficient facts to establish willful and malicious conduct on the part of Shields.

Marion v. City of Boca Raton

47 So. 3d 334 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 20, 2010

Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071, 1075 (Fla.1982): Commercial Carrier established that discretionary, judgmental, planning-level decisions were immune from suit, but that operational-level decisions were not so immune. … Such a large intersection as present in this case would qualify as being inherently dangerous.

Lewis v. Evans

406 So. 2d 489 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 23, 1981

Those circumstances clearly brought the matter within the ambit of the privilege sometimes referred to as a "qualified business privilege." … Proof that defamation is false, and was known to be such by the publisher, certainly establishes malice in fact, but that is by no means the only way to prove malice.