Case law

EAC USA, INC. v. Kawa

805 So. 2d 1 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 11, 2001

The failure to permit amendment constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile. … The element of intent can be established if the act is substantially certain to cause the offensive contact. Id. § 8, at 36.

Robert K. Bavle v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 5, 2025

The trial testimony established that, on the night of the shooting, the victim initiated a physical altercation with Appellant by hitting him in the back of the head. … A witness just feet away from where the victim fell testified that he clearly saw the victim had nothing in his hands. The victim was not carrying a firearm, although one was later found in his vehicle.

Gavlick v. State

740 So. 2d 1212 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 11, 1999

Appellant first argues that his motion for judgment of acquittal on the racketeering and conspiracy counts should have been granted for failure of the State to establish the existence of an "enterprise." … Clearly, the qualifying felony must be a prior felony and the defendant must have been convicted of that prior felony within five years of the date of commission of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced.

Juan Carlos Alvarado-Balmaceda v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 3, 2026

At sentencing, the State introduced evidence of Alvarado’s prior conviction2 establishing that he qualified as a habitual violent felony offender under section 775.084(1)(b), Florida Statutes. … At the hearing, Alvarado’s counsel conceded that the State “has established that . . . Alvarado has one qualifying prior.”

Gallagher v. Manatee County

927 So. 2d 914 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 1, 2006

The reference to section 768.28(5) is to the statutory provision which establishes limitations on the waiver of sovereign immunity for tort liability: (5) The state and its agencies and subdivisions shall be liable for tort … Instead, the statute's plain and ordinary meaning must control, unless this leads to an unreasonable result or a result clearly contrary to legislative intent. State v.

Miller v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2020 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 22, 1985

Our prior decision established the law of the case on this issue, and we should not revisit the issue absent extraordinary circumstances satisfying recognized exceptions to the general rule. In Strazzulla v. … Malpractice in the rendering of specific medical services, however, would clearly breach existing common law duties and would render the governmental entity liable in tort.

Osorio v. Metropolitan Dade County

459 So. 2d 332 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 9, 1984

Appellee also argues that the actual placement of the sign technically complies with the minimum mandatory provisions of the manual on uniform traffic control devices, thereby conclusively establishing its absence of negligence … Appellee's decision to erect a stop ahead sign, as required by the manual, and the further decision regarding the proper location for the sign clearly constituted planning decisions that are immune from suit.

STATE DEPT. HEALTH AND REHAB. v. Belveal

663 So. 2d 650 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 29, 1995

Prior to the summer of 1990, HRS relied upon government-salaried attorneys to represent qualified parents in intrastate child support enforcement proceedings under a federally mandated program. … Some of the limitations on governmental promissory estoppel are similar to concepts of sovereign immunity. In light of our ruling in this case, however, we decline to reach the broader sovereign immunity issue.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION v. GADITH SABBAH, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 22, 2023

Venice HMA, LLC, 325 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), the Second District declined to review an order denying a motion asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity as a non-final, appealable order pursuant to the recently … Ace Cash Express, Inc., 863 So. 2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (noting that when the Florida Supreme Court “chooses to apply a rule to pending cases, it clearly indicates that intention”); Johnson v.

Jetton v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth.

399 So. 2d 396 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 29, 1981

The waiver of sovereign immunity under the statute clearly extends to units that, like JEA, are "primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of ... municipalities." Fla. Stat. § 768.28 (2) (1977). … substitute remedy requirement. [8] Nor does elimination of one possible ground for relief require the legislature to provide some replacement. [9] In contrast to Kluger and other cases [10] involving complete abolition of an established

City of Miami v. De La Cruz

784 So. 2d 475 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 14, 2001

Here, De La Cruz provided sufficient testimony and evidence to establish that she was injured as a result of the City's negligence. … A new trial, solely on damages is appropriate here since liability was clearly established without substantial dispute.

McAdam v. Thom

610 So. 2d 510 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 17, 1992

We conclude that the personal representative's claim is barred by the doctrine of interspousal immunity. Reviewing the facts, a trust containing most of the property of McAdam, Sr. was established in 1978. … Clearly, where a judgment is vacated or set aside, it is as though no judgment had ever been entered. Shields v. Flinn, 528 So.2d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

BL v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv.

545 So. 2d 289 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 28, 1989

only to civil or criminal liability and does not relate to administrative classification, and furthermore, clearly states that immunity does not avail where "excessive force" has been used. … The record is absolutely *293 clear that HRS and the hearing officers not only intended to establish, but did establish, a conclusive presumption that bruising lasting six or seven days constitutes excessive force.

Cobb v. Ashley

177 So. 3d 52 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 30, 2015

The supreme court held that the facts alleged established a common law legal duty on the sheriff, acting through his *54 deputies, to conduct the safety check in a non-negligent manner. … If these preliminary questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, then the challenged act, omission, or decision can, with a reasonable degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary governmental

HEART OF ADOPTIONS, INC. v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 8, 2023

Stat. (2021), that the prospective adoptive parents were qualified to adopt the child but that the adoption by those parents was not in the child's best interests. … It involves "a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003).

Bogan v. State

226 So. 2d 110 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 15, 1969

Other witnesses established the remaining essentials of the corpus delicti of the felony murder. … This aspect also tends to establish or corroborate intent to commit the robbery involved here.

Department of Corrections v. McGhee

653 So. 2d 1091 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 13, 1995

Moreover, I feel confident that the bar of governmental immunity is inapplicable, because the facts clearly show, as discussed infra, that the DOC's conduct was operational. … Willard, 468 So.2d 936, 938 (Fla. 1985): "The victim of a criminal offense, which might have been prevented through reasonable law enforcement action, does not establish a common law duty of care to the individual citizen

Commitment of Smith v. State

827 So. 2d 1026 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 11, 2002

must have committed one of the enumerated crimes set forth in the statute. [2] In most cases, this can be established by a certified copy of the conviction. … This team conducts an evaluation of the person for the purpose of recommending whether the person qualifies for commitment.

Martin v. Drylie

560 So. 2d 1285 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 25, 1990

Otherwise stated, does the record in this case at this point establish as a matter of law that when he operated on Ms. Martin, Dr. … Clearly, Ms. Martin was not a signatory to that contract, and the critical question as we view it is Dr. Drylie's status or function vis-a-vis his patient.

DANI SHIMON v. R.B.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 3, 2021

An order compelling testimony in violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination qualifies as irreparable harm justifying the issuance of a writ of certiorari. See Aguila v. Frederic, 45 Fla. L. … Here, future prosecution of this action is not barred by the statute of limitations, 1 legal immunity from prosecution has not been granted, 2 and the protection against double jeopardy has not been established.