Case law

Flores v. Miami-Dade County

787 So. 2d 955 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 13, 2001

Professor Ehrhardt has explained: Whenever an expert testifies, counsel may cross-examine the expert regarding any matter about which the expert testifies in establishing his or her qualifications, both as a basis of arguing … that the witness is not qualified as an expert and to argue that even if he or she is qualified, the jury should not give the opinion testimony great weight. ...

Swindle v. State

254 So. 2d 811 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 12, 1971

Appellant further argues, and we agree, that the additional instruction, to-wit: "I further charge you that no organization or union has the lawful authority to give any person immunity from prosecution for doing unlawful … NOTES [1] § 920.05, F.S. 1969 — Grounds for new trial, if substantial rights of defendant have been prejudiced. — (1) The court shall grant a new trial if any of the following grounds are established, provided the substantial

Belvin v. State

922 So. 2d 1046 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 8, 2006

There must be a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Id. (citing Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95-96 (Fla.1983)). … But for purposes of certiorari review, "clearly established law" can derive from recent controlling constitutional law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v.

Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. Edwards

528 So. 2d 951 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 14, 1988

However, we do not need to reach that issue in this case and create a conflict with Johnson and Green because, even if a qualified privilege attached to the photographs, we hold that in this case petitioner established a … Any qualified privilege must yield in these circumstances.

Schwartz v. Zippy Mart, Inc.

470 So. 2d 720 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 7, 1985

Such injuries clearly fall outside the coverage of the Florida Workers' Compensation statutes. … Later appellate cases from the District of Columbia have qualified the Lyon v. Carey test of foreseeability. Thus, International Distributing Corp. v.

Anderson Columbia v. Bd. of Trustees

748 So. 2d 1061 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 22, 1999

The Florida Supreme Court long ago rejected this suggestion however when it said: These acts, together with the act here under attack, evidence a public policy established under legislative authority, beginning as far back … On the other hand, tracing title to the Butler Act or the Riparian Act of 1856 does not immunize the holder from the perils inherent in owning waterfront property.

O'NEAL v. Tribune Company

176 So. 2d 535 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 7, 1965

Where conditional immunity is sought, each case must stand on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. … As we have pointed out, the evidence, under the qualified or conditional immunity of a newspaper characterized in the statement which we have previously set out, indisputably connected Mrs.

McKnight v. State

727 So. 2d 314 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 17, 1999

She contends that if the state seeks to sentence the defendant as a PRR and establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that she qualifies, the trial court has no sentencing options and must sentence her to the maximum … First, our analysis above clearly establishes that the sentencing provisions of the statute are mandatory where the state complies with the statute's provisions.

Claire's Boutiques, Inc. v. Locastro

85 So. 3d 1192 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 25, 2012

Locastro also filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that she was immune from liability because she did not have liability insurance and parents are “immune from suit by their children and could be held liable only … Expert testimony is not an absolute requirement to establish causation. See Atkins v.

Florida Agency For Health Care Adm. v. Shirley McClain

244 So. 3d 1147 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 18, 2018

Clearly, the orders on appeal in these cases do not contain the specific language which is required by [Hastings]. Id. at 30. … But when, as here, the motion to dismiss is based on an affirmative defense, the defendant’s entitlement to the affirmative defense may require the establishment of facts that are not contained in the complaint.

School Board of Broward County v. Surette

394 So. 2d 147 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 28, 1981

Clearly, therefore, as the trial court correctly observed, the policy in question did not cover an accident resulting from an automobile (or bus) owned, leased or operated by the school board. … Immunity *152 of the school board against liability damages is waived to the extent of liability insurance carried by the school board.

Katina Paese v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 28, 2024

The evidence presented at the immunity hearing established that the incident at the heart of this case began when she threw a roll of duct tape into the interior of the elevator after four men used a “master” key fob to override … The dissent argues that our Legislature cannot change the common law—as the dissent asserts it did in section 776.031(1) by establishing immunity from prosecution, eliminating any duty to retreat, and clarifying the circumstances

Kass Shuler, P.A. v. Barchard

120 So. 3d 165 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 23, 2013

Under clearly established law, the circuit court was obliged to affirm the county court’s judgment (but only in part, as we will explain) because the record brought forward by Barchard was inadequate to demonstrate reversible … An individual who files a Bar complaint against an attorney and makes no public announcement of the complaint enjoys absolute immunity. Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, 977 (Fla.1998).

ASHLEY ANN KRAPACS v. NISHA E. BACCHUS

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 12, 2020

Johnson, 226 So. 3d 337, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (finding that multiple acts can “amount to one continuous course of conduct, establishing only one instance of harassment”). … As the Third District noted, those actions would clearly not be protected and if they occurred could be addressed through injunctive relief. See id. Therefore, we reverse the injunction entered against Krapacs.

Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car

762 So. 2d 1040 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 28, 2000

Clearly, in Shiver , had the wife survived *1044 the attack she would have had a cause of action against her husband subject to the defense of interspousal immunity. [2] Because the court reasoned that since the defense of … The facts establishing a bailment, however, are not in dispute.

Zolkowski v. Department of Transportation State

14 Fla. L. Weekly 2200 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 20, 1989

The record further establishes that DOT, at the charge conference, submitted an instruction on the issue of sovereign immunity for design defects. … That order clearly indicated that the principal reasons for granting the motion were: 1. Error in admission of expert testimony concerning design deficiencies or alternative designs; 2.

City of Deland v. Landolfi

97 So. 3d 869 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 17, 2012

Code R. 55A-7.01K2). *873 The City argues that PERC’s conclusion that it violated section 295.07(2) by failing to grant Landolfi an interview even though it ultimately hired a more qualified applicant is clearly erroneous … That showing will be sufficient to establish a violation of the veterans’ preference statute unless the employer meets its burden to show that the non-veteran hired was more qualified. Id.; see also Evans v. Fla. State.

Williams v. American Optical Corp.

985 So. 2d 23 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 28, 2008

Clearly this holding establishes that genuine emotional effects from contracting asbestosis are actionable under Florida law even though no physical impairment or cancer has resulted. See also W.R. Grace & Co. v. … repeal could not defeat that immunity.

Weingrad v. Miles

29 So. 3d 406 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 3, 2010

The court found that the “establishment or elimination of such a claim is clearly a substantive, rather than procedural, decision of the legislature because such a decision does, in fact, grant or eliminate a right or entitlement … Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 88 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), wherein the United States Supreme Court noted that “[o]ur cases have clearly established that ‘[a] person has no property,

Brown v. DHRS

690 So. 2d 641 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 10, 1997

The complaints also allege that HRS had a duty to monitor and supervise the operation of Day Care so as to protect children in attendance from potential harm by Acosta where the risk of such harm was clearly foreseeable. … There has never been a common law duty establishing a duty of care with regard to how these various governmental bodies or officials should carry out these functions. These actions are inherent in the act of governing.