Case law

City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend PBA

703 So. 2d 1066 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 24, 1997

Here, the arbitration statute clearly anticipates that, following confirmation of an award, additional judicial work (i.e., entry of a judgment) will occur. § 682.15, Fla. Stat. (1995). … Resha, 648 So.2d 1187 (Fla.1994)(in holding that "an order denying summary judgment based upon a claim of qualified immunity is subject to interlocutory review to the extent that the order turns on an issue of law," the Florida

University of Miami v. Exposito ex rel. Gonzales

87 So. 3d 803 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 27, 2012

(d) The costs of birth-related neurological injury claims are particularly high and warrant the establishment of a limited system of compensation irrespective of fault. … Because the NICA Plan provides limited remedies as a statutory substitute for common law rights and liabilities, this Court has held that the NICA statute “should be strictly construed to include *811 only those subjects clearly

Watkins v. Officer David Session

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 7, 2022

To overcome the qualified-immunity defense, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official deprived him of a constitutional right that was “clearly established” when the alleged offense occurred. See Saucier v. … For purposes of qualified immunity in this District, only decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Florida Supreme Court constitute “clearly established” law. See McClish v.

Huhn v. Dixie Ins. Co.

453 So. 2d 70 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 17, 1984

Modlin attempted to establish a new standard for liability by applying a brightline general duty/special duty test. … a broad, but qualified, scale.

Adams v. James

797 F. Supp. 940 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1992

Evans, 922 F.2d 712, 718 (1991), in determining whether the defense of qualified immunity is available, the District Court must ... determine whether the allegedly violated right was clearly established, and then to determine … Therefore, Plaintiffs would be entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. B.

Van Poyck v. Dugger

779 F. Supp. 571 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 8, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “Qualified immunity shields government officials executing discretionary responsibilities from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Court concludes, therefore, that the law was clearly established at the time Plaintiff was denied his request to have Ms. Chisholm on his visitors list, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

FL. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. Contractpoint Florida Parks, LLC

33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 10, 2008

Instead, a party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief...."). … In those cases, the Court expressed no concern about the feasibility of seeking redress before the Legislature and abided by the long established principles that "[i]n Florida, sovereign immunity is the rule, rather than

Darling v. State

81 So. 3d 574 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 29, 2012

“Evidence is inextricably intertwined if the evidence is necessary to (1) adequately describe the deed, (2) provide an intelligent account of the crime(s) charged, (3) establish the entire context out of which the charged … State, 74 So.3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon qualifies as an unlawful activity within the “stand your ground” law).

Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Whitworth

442 So. 2d 1078 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1983

Section 440.11(2) provides exceptions to the immunity granted in the case of certain willful assaults [physical aggression] and automobile accidents. … It would appear that the immunity granted under the statute was not intended to cover instances where a carrier intentionally harms the employee.

State v. Rendon

832 So. 2d 141 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 30, 2002

Following Garrett , various courts of appeal have held that sovereign immunity also bars actions against states under Title II, which provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability … That predicate ... has not been established." Id. at 376 , 121 S.Ct. 955 .

Mueller v. the Florida Bar

390 So. 2d 449 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 19, 1980

The question is whether The Florida Bar and its duly authorized agents enjoy immunity from liability for defamation or malicious prosecution by virtue of an absolute privilege. The answer is a qualified yes. … It was clearly within the scope of the authority of staff counsel to advise not only appellant's clients but also his prospective clients of appellant's disbarment. The latter category consists of the public at large.

Charlie Wyne v. State of Florida

189 So. 3d 840 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 29, 2015

The participants discussed a proffer letter which would provide him immunity from non-violent crimes, but the Assistant U.S. Attorney told appellant directly that he would not obtain immunity for any crimes of violence. … Under a totality of the circumstances test, the trial court clearly did not err in denying the motion to suppress the confession as involuntary. Traylor v.

City of Freeport v. Beach Community Bank

108 So. 3d 684 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 18, 2013

Because the City claims immunity from suit, and the effect of the challenged order requires the City to submit to litigation beyond such time as its immunity can be properly determined, we conclude that the City has established … Immunity from suit, inherent in sovereign immunity, is a distinct concept from a lack of liability under established tort law.

Roofing v. Flemmings

138 So. 3d 524 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 30, 2014

The Florida legislature accomplished this result first by creating the defense to such a civil action and then clearly and specifically providing that the defense is established by evidence of a criminal conviction for a … The court further determined that a defendant raising the immunity would have the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 980 .

Madera v. Detzner

325 F. Supp. 3d 1269 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Sep 10, 2018

"[T]he principle of sovereign immunity is a constitutional limitation on the federal judicial power established in Art. III." Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. … Defendant Detzner argues these numbers fail to clearly establish a likelihood of success on the merits because Dr.

JOSEPH CASTELLANO, M. D. v. DAVID HALPERN, M. D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 29, 2023

Next, we must determine whether Castellano has shown that the trial court departed from clearly established law. … A departure from clearly established law can be shown by the misapplication of the plain language in a statute. Gonzalez, 15 So. 3d at 39.

Hartman v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

960 F. Supp. 1577 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 30, 1996

In these motions, the defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. The Court has carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties. … immunity as a defense to liability.

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports · Dec 21, 1978

it clearly provide that an individual employee is immune from suit as a result of injuries sustained due to his negligence. … Had the legislature intended that individual employees be immune from suit, they would have clearly so stated.

Delmonico v. Traynor

50 So. 3d 4 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 16, 2010

Clearly, speaking to potential witnesses during the pendency of litigation is of "some relation to the proceeding." … The court determined that attorneys performing extra-judicial investigations would be protected by qualified immunity.

Huffman v. Davis

571 So. 2d 1371 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 14, 1990

If Huffman was indeed voluntarily providing legal assistance to non-inmates, then clearly he was not exercising a constitutional right, and his 1983 action must fail. … Appellee additionally claims that even if Huffman was deprived of a constitutional right, appellee was acting in good faith to fulfill his responsibilities; thus he was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.