Case law

Wagner v. Orange County

960 So. 2d 785 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 15, 2007

In other words, enactment of a claim bill may conceivably implicate available insurance in excess of the $100,000 cap contained in the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. … This hearing may at times resemble a trial during which the claimant offers testimony as well as documentary and physical evidence necessary to establish the claim.

Clement v. Rousselle Corp.

372 So. 2d 1156 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 10, 1979

Immunity from suit does not prevent the defendant, an outsider to the immune relationship, from proving that the negligence of the immune non-party was the sole cause of the accident. [3] Appellant contends, however, that … The jury verdict can also be supported by evidence tending to establish that there was no breach of duty on the part of the manufacturer.

Schur v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological

832 So. 2d 188 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 25, 2002

An ALJ's final order is reversible on appeal where its interpretation of the law is clearly erroneous or its findings of fact are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. § 120.68(7)(b), (d), Fla. … This Court in Athey established a bright-line rule requiring pre-delivery notice from each health care provider in order to preserve his or her NICA plan immunity.

Estate of Parson

416 So. 2d 513 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 7, 1982

Appellant clearly falls into that category. … The facts of the instant case present more clearly than could a hypothetical the dilemma which an indiscriminate application of the rule in Barber might produce.

Wells v. Haldeos

48 So. 3d 85 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 22, 2010

Section 196.031(5) clearly and unambiguously refers to a “person” and not a married couple or family unit. … provide benefits, income, or support to each other, each may be granted a homestead exemption if they otherwise qualify.

Dixie Ins. Co. v. Gaffney

582 So. 2d 64 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 14, 1991

or nonexistence of such immunity, power, privilege, or right does or may depend, whether such immunity, power, privilege or right now exists or will arise in the future. … Woody, 399 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981), clearly suggests that Section 86.101 does not give a declaratory judgment plaintiff a "blank check."

Pesci v. State

420 So. 2d 380 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 12, 1982

for the sake of further discussion that neither the constitution nor state supreme court precedent is a bar to consideration of the question presented it is our opinion that the arrest and search in this case would not qualify … If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, then it is clearly frustrated here, since all the officer did is that which was expected of him.

Williams v. Cotton

346 So. 2d 1039 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 25, 1977

In the case we now consider the testimony of the plaintiff does not establish an intentional tort. … North *1042 Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 244 N.C. 560 , 94 S.E.2d 577 (1956), the court held the act committed by a police officer was a tort — not negligence — in determining whether the State was immune under its immunity

City of Jacksonville Beach v. Albury

291 So. 2d 82 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 8, 1973

of the City of Jacksonville [3] when, in upholding the constitutional validity of the charter act of appellee-City of Jacksonville, the court said: "`The provision of the Jacksonville Consolidation Amendment quoted above clearly … That portion of the charter of appellee-City of Jacksonville embodied in the amendatory act designated as Chapter 67-1535 clearly grants to appellants the same powers, privileges, and immunities which they exercised and enjoyed

Mejia v. Ruiz

985 So. 2d 1109 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 14, 2008

Mejia established that her writ of execution was valid and returned unsatisfied and listed appellees as the parties to be impleaded. … Here, appellees disregarded the statute and are therefore entitled to no immunity.

West Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. See

18 So. 3d 676 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 25, 2009

First, the findings accompanying the statute clearly show that Congress looked at a variety of ways to give doctors protection and incentives to participate in peer review programs. Id. § 11101. … immunity provision in the HCQIA.

Powell v. Barnes

629 So. 2d 185 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 5, 1993

This clearly was error. … That evidence must come from witnesses qualified in the areas concerned.

North Dade Imported Motors, Inc. v. Brundage Motors, Inc.

221 So. 2d 170 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 18, 1969

Willis, Jr., telephoned Brundage Motors to discuss the possibility *173 of establishing a Volkswagen dealership in St. Petersburg. … During the first part of 1964, North Dade submitted several financially qualified potential purchasers to Brundage, which refused to approve any of them.

TYMOTHY RAY MARTIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 4, 2018

Martin filed a motion to establish immunity under section 776.032. … Neither the substantive rights of a successful claim of immunity nor the necessary elements of proof to establish a claim of immunity were altered by the June 9, 2017, amendment. Cf. Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed.

Castle Beach Club Condominium, Inc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp.

96 So. 3d 964 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 1, 2012

Thus, Castle Beach must demonstrate that the language the Legislature chose in Citizens’ enabling statute clearly reflects its intent to affect the privilege even though the privilege is not specifically referenced. … Admiralty House, Inc., 66 So.3d 342, 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (finding that “Citizens qualifies as a public body”); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v.

North Miami Medical Center v. Prezeau

793 So. 2d 1142 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 12, 2001

Among other defenses, Parkway alleged that it was immune from liability pursuant to the Good Samaritan Statute. § 768.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). … for the incident but rather is limited by the maximum amount of damages that he or she can establish not reduced by an allocation of fault.

Gross v. Rudy's Stone Co.

179 So. 2d 603 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 22, 1965

With this we are in accord, but we cannot agree with plaintiff when he attempts to carry this theory one step further and say that inasmuch as no such general liability is imposed upon the subcontractor, the consequent immunity … “Try as we may, we cannot but reach the same conclusion as was arrived at by the circuit judge in his recitation that the intention of the legislature as clearly disclosed by the amendment was ‘to sweep within its provisions

Steve Matthews v. the State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 2, 2025

The trial court determined, and we agree, that the information contained in these two affidavits does not constitute newly-discovered evidence because Matthews failed to establish that this evidence was unknown to him and … Naylor, let me try and —— and put it a little more clearly. You say you‘re going to come into court if there's a new trial and you're going to testify for Mr. Matthews; is that right? A: Yes, sir.

Brown v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.

196 So. 2d 465 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 10, 1967

The Brautigam opinion discusses the legal status of a libel per se in the following language (text 127 So.2d 722 ): "The reported decisions of this state, as well as others, clearly establish that a publication is libelous … The numerous authorities, supra, clearly show that all such elements are the equivalent of express malice. And the rationale of all this is obvious.

Telesco Construction Management, Inc. v. National Concrete Preservation, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 6, 2024

Certiorari relief lies when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in irreparable harm and a miscarriage of justice that cannot be remedied on appeal. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. … The trial court’s order violates clearly established law. See Shader v.