Case law

Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc. v. Keathley, the Board of Trustees of the University of South Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 24, 2026

WASC claimed workers' compensation immunity as an affirmative defense, arguing that Mr. Keathley was its statutory employee and that therefore it was immune from tort liability. … project, it did not establish that it sublet any part of that contractual obligation to West Shore.

McGraw v. R and R Investments, Ltd.

877 So. 2d 886 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 20, 2004

These signs shall be placed in a clearly visible location near to where the equine activity begins. … Clearly, a mandatory, not a directory, interpretation of the word "shall" is required. As was observed in Allied Fidelity Insurance Co. v.

Horn v. State, Department of Transportation

665 So. 2d 1122 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 4, 1996

Courts which have considered the question have concluded that section 763a “and its legislative history[] clearly evidence a Congressional intent to establish a uniform statute of limitations, consistent with the well-established … Port of Houston Auth., 702 F.2d 612 (5th Cir.1983) (notice *1126 requirement clearly intended by state as limitation on waiver of sovereign immunity as to tort claims generally controls, notwithstanding fact that claim is

Chiang v. Wildcat Groves, Inc.

703 So. 2d 1083 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 15, 1997

Assuming the truthfulness of its allegations and attached exhibits, the complaint clearly establishes that at the time of the accident Kitschke was not within the course and scope of his employment thus precluding the invocation … As noted, the Department of Transportation’s attempt to overcome the employer’s immunity established by section 440.11(1) was based on a theory that the employer exhibited acts of gross negligence resulting in injury to the

University of Florida Board of Trustees v. Stone

92 So. 3d 264 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 21, 2012

To overcome the immunity provided by the Act, the plaintiff was required to establish that the defendant acted with “reckless disregard” for the consequences to the life or health of another. Id. … The record refutes this tipsy-coachman argument and establishes that AGH was providing services to Mr.

Scott v. Gunter

447 So. 2d 272 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 1, 1983

Thus understanding that Bruce Scott is not a Rhode Islander but a Floridian recently arrived from Rhode Island, we more clearly appreciate, through these equations, that the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution … A blanket one-year durational residency requirement, however, clearly is not “closely tailored” to address the speculative evil new Floridians are alleged to pose.

State v. Williams

11 Fla. L. Weekly 695 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 20, 1986

The amended statute confers no authority on the state to grant a witness transactional immunity. The distinction between the two types of immunity was clearly stated in State v. … Moreover, the Fifth Amendment, establishing the privilege against self-incrimination, does not require that immunity statutes preclude all uses of immunized testimony. United States v.

Cheney v. Dade County

353 So. 2d 623 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1977

The statute under review contains no such limiting language; it clearly waives governmental tort immunity for the state, counties and municipal corporations of Florida without reference to whether the sovereign function involved … 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, just as if the county were a private

Edward A. Crapo, as Alachua County etc. v. Provident Group - Continuum etc.

238 So. 3d 869 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 7, 2018

[T]he University clearly intended to have the use and benefit of this project and has accepted the same. . . . … This establishes the property’s status as immune from tax. . . . The trial court alternatively determined that Appellee was entitled to a governmental and charitable tax exemption for 2014 through 2016.

Gayer v. Fine Line Const. & Elec., Inc.

970 So. 2d 424 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 28, 2007

Generally, to establish a claim for spoliation, the plaintiff must prove six elements: "(1) existence of a potential civil action, (2) a legal or contractual duty to preserve evidence which is relevant to the potential civil … Labor Ready, 947 So.2d 599, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("Distinguishing the relevant employer for workers' compensation purposes in employee leasing context is more complicated, however, than simply determining who might qualify

City of St. Petersburg v. Earle

109 So. 2d 388 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 30, 1959

Petersburg above quoted nullifies or qualifies the general rule as stated in Williams v. Lake City. I think this claim is well founded and that under that statute, which is Section 1 of the charter of St. … It is, to us, evident and we think, common sense, to hold that an act, in order to change the common law, must clearly express that intention. The language used in the charter of St.

Fossett v. Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC

60 So. 3d 1155 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 18, 2011

The trial court ruled that SET had immunity from suit under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2006). … “The help supplied is always on the payroll of the supplying establishments, but is under the direct or general supervision of the business to whom the help is furnished.”

Univeristy of Miami, School of Medicine v. Ruiz

164 So. 3d 758 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 27, 2015

Although NICA’s Notice Provision makes no reference to NICA’s Immunity Provision or discusses waiver of immunity in the statute itself, it is now well-established Florida law that a party who is required to give notice … Because the plaintiffs have alleged that UM is “directly involved” in the labor and delivery, and UM is clearly entitled to immunity under 8 At oral argument, counsel for the plaintiffs admitted that the complaint was

Department of Highway Safety v. Marks

898 So. 2d 1063 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 18, 2005

judicial capacities unless they clearly act without jurisdiction. … The Volpe remand is analogous to the one in Lewis , to allow the establishment of factual circumstances not in the record.

Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Van Gessel

665 So. 2d 263 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 15, 1995

They further assert that the public interest here does not reach the threshold required to strike down the family exclusion clause because it is not clearly injurious to the public good nor does it contravene some established … If exclusions are clearly stated in insurance policies, the exclusion should be upheld. See Coleman v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 432 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

State of Florida, Agency for Persons With Disabilities v. Sally Toal

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 26, 2025

Because the Whistleblower’s Act does not clearly and unequivocally waive sovereign immunity to authorize the recovery of such damages, we reverse. … or reconcile its holding with the well-established principle that a waiver of immunity cannot be found by inference or implication.

Dennis v. City of Tampa

581 So. 2d 1345 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 29, 1991

We affirm the summary judgment because the record establishes no breach of any standard of care owed by the City to a park patron. … Since the City clearly owed some common law duty to invitees who entered the park, Ms.

CITRUS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. D/B/A CITRUS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. MARLA IANNELLI AND TONY GAINEY

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 9, 2023

The “Liability protections” portion of the PREP Act clearly establishes immunity “from suit and liability,” thereby making certiorari review appropriate in this type of case; rather than dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction … ’s determination of whether immunity from suit was established.

Jory v. Department of Professional Regulation

583 So. 2d 1075 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 11, 1991

In Friedman , the challenged restriction concerned residency requirements for qualified lawyers to become admitted to practice law in Virginia without taking the state’s bar examination. … Clearly, the residency requirements of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, do not meet the first prong of the inquiry articulated in Friedman, supra.

Palm Beach County Sheriff v. State

854 So. 2d 278 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 17, 2003

Mandamus may not be used to establish the existence of such a right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law. Fla. League of Cities v. … The Sheriff cites no statute that clearly authorizes the type of relief he seeks.