Case law

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).

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.

Buck v. McLean

115 So. 2d 764 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 8, 1959

from such liability, is clearly explained. … If, therefore, a change in the long established rule of immunity prevailing in this State is to be made, it must come as it did in the States of New York, Washington and California either by constitutional amendment, or by

Florida Power and Light Company v. Brown

274 So. 2d 558 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 13, 1973

We do not believe that the negotiations between F.P.L. and the owners of the Fashion Square [2] resulted in a "contract" as was contemplated by the statute in order for F.P.L. to qualify as a "contractor" subject to immunity … contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment

Dept. of Rev. v. City of Gainesville

859 So. 2d 595 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 26, 2003

The constitutional language clearly requires the use be for a public or municipal purpose before it qualifies for the exemption. … At least in tax exemption cases, however, it has been clearly established that the "governmental-governmental" public purpose standard governs. Id. at 250-51 (footnotes omitted).

Good Samaritan Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Simon

370 So. 2d 1174 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 14, 1979

Here, the legislature clearly intended to allow actions such as that filed by respondent. … Clearly, one of the broad purposes of Section 768.40 was to establish a high quality of health care in Florida by encouraging the formation of medical review committees to monitor the performance of physicians and other health

Harrison v. Escambia County School Bd.

419 So. 2d 640 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 23, 1982

Finally, although the public body's decision to take certain action may have been made at the planning level, and therefore immune, Johnson clearly states that the attachment of immunity to the original decision does not … be placed on notice, either actually or constructively, of a change in conditions is analogous to the rule that long antedated the enactment of the qualified waiver of sovereign immunity in Florida as to municipalities that

M.S. v. Nova Southeastern University Inc.

881 So. 2d 614 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 21, 2004

In addition, the evidence established that. Coastal hired and paid the salaries of the physicians. … Plaintiffs and the School Board argue that this provision clearly indicates that the parties did not intend for Nova to act as an agent of the School Board.

3-M Elec. Corp. v. Vigoa

369 So. 2d 405 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 3, 1979

The allegations of the said counterclaim constitute an attempt to establish a right to contribution from the appellees/plaintiffs in a tort action. Mr. and Mrs. … Moore, 330 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). [5] In fact, the interspousal immunity doctrine clearly remains viable as well. Blanton v. Blanton, 354 So.2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Hoskins v. Metzger

102 So. 3d 752 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 19, 2012

The motion argues that there is no cause of action due to this immunity, but it appears to us that immunity is actually an affirmative defense. See Fariello v. … Metzger may qualify to testify as an expert at trial, but we are not entirely convinced that he qualifies as a professional for tort liability.

Arko Plumbing Corp. v. Rudd

230 So. 3d 520 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 18, 2017

Under Florida’s absolute litigation privilege, a defendant can slander the plaintiff and lie to her and the court, and still be absolutely immune from a later lawsuit for defamation, tortious interference with a business … against Arko, who lied under oath, had a knowable drug problem, and was paid for his testimony, was circumstantial evidence of express malice. 16  Express malice “may be established

Gerth v. Wilson

774 So. 2d 5 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 11, 2000

The court reversed a summary judgment granting immunity and clearly stated that the "intentional tort exception includes an objective standard to measure whether the employer engaged in conduct which was substantially certain … This decision appears to be in conformance with the legislative intent embodied in the adoption of section 440.11(1), which establishes an objective standard for judging workers' compensation immunity.

TRIANON PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC. v. City of Hialeah

423 So. 2d 911 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 11, 1983

The City's appeal addresses the issue of the scope of sovereign immunity of a municipality. … Similarly, we find that the City's enforcement of the established Code standards is a purely ministerial action which does not rise to the status of basic policy evaluation since the majority of the inspectors' acts involve

RENE TOIRAN v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 17, 2021

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b), Toiran filed a pre- trial motion to dismiss, asserting that he qualifies for statutory immunity from criminal prosecution under Florida’s Stand Your Ground (“SYG” … And thus, “a trial court’s error in applying the correct burden at the immunity hearing can be cured if the State establishes the defendant’s guilt at trial by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

Ball v. D'LITES ENTERPRISES, INC.

65 So. 3d 637 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 27, 2011

The prosecutor was entitled only to qualified immunity. In Pratt v. … An order dismissing some counts of a complaint, but leaving others pending, is not appealable if the remaining counts require proof of the same facts necessary to establish the counts which were dismissed.

Pilieci v. State

991 So. 2d 883 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 9, 2008

We are not willing to do so."). [12] Some courts have compared the analysis of this objective standard to the analysis utilized in cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … The good faith standard for purposes of qualified immunity exists to prevent monetary judgments from being entered against good police officers who make understandable mistakes.

Mora v. South Broward Hosp. Dist.

710 So. 2d 633 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 1, 1998

Clearly, chapter 415, part 1, does not explicitly provide individuals with a private cause of action against those violating the reporting requirement. … We recognize that the immunity provision contained in § 415.1036 provides civil as well as criminal immunity for one making a report required by the statute.

Bellavance v. State

390 So. 2d 422 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 13, 1980

We conclude that, as applied to these contentions of plaintiffs, the four questions heretofore posed clearly and unequivocally demand affirmative answers. (e.s.) … The court found that these were "operational, ministerial or housekeeping functions," for which suit would lie, but concluded that the record failed to establish negligence.

Chorak v. Naughton

409 So. 2d 35 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 5, 1982

To establish a battery, a plaintiff must suffer a harmful or offensive contact, and the tortfeasor must have intended to cause such contact. … Thus, the exclusivity provision of the Act clearly precludes an employee who acts with willful and wanton disregard, or with gross negligence and whose actions cause injury to a fellow employee from claiming immunity for

Horton v. Unigard Ins. Co.

355 So. 2d 154 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 14, 1978

Having established that the doctrine is still viable we must decide whether there is something unique about a wrongful death action which would exempt such an action from the application of the doctrine. … Clearly Clementine could not maintain an action and recover damages against her husband Raymond had she survived her injuries.