Case law

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.

Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County

739 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 27, 1990

However, the motions involved a number of different legal issues including legislative immunity, qualified immunity, punitive damages, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , Federal Civ. Proc. … The defense of the individual commissioners did include several difficult issues including absolute and qualified immunity, and the potential for an award of punitive damages.

McMahon Ex Rel. Estate of McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc.

460 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2006

Neneman, 884 F.2d 1350, 1351 (10th Cir.1989) (“The immunity established in Feres attaches only when an action has been brought against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”). … Unless they qualify as employees or agents of the Government, private contractors may not bootstrap the Government’s sovereign immunity.

Tambay Trustee, Inc. v. Florida Progress Corp. (In re Lawson)

67 B.R. 94 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 6, 1986

it is evident that the “ipso facto” clause is of no effect, and presents no obstacles to the Trustee’s right to the Debtor’s shares provided, of course, that the shares are “properties of the estate” and not excluded and immunized … It follows that the next inquiry must be addressed to the issue of whether the ESOP and the Trust established under it would qualify as a spendthrift trust under Florida law and thus be excepted from the estate pursuant to

Woody v. City of West Miami

477 F. Supp. 1073 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 13, 1979

There is ample evidence that the City of West Miami has no clearly ascertainable job standards other than the equivocal “best qualified” criterion, which in terms of its consequences, operated to discriminate against the … Mayor Cooper is thereby not entitled to qualified immunity for his official action. 4 .

Hill v. Dept. of Corrections

12 Fla. L. Weekly 495 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 24, 1987

App. 1 , 371 N.W.2d 876 (1985), stated: Clearly, the sovereign immunity of the states was well established at common law at the time that § 1983 was enacted. … In any event, that dimension of state sovereign immunity clearly preexisted Section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act.

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

Sabal Palm Condominiums of Pine Island Ridge Ass'n v. Fischer

6 F. Supp. 3d 1272 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 19, 2014

It asserts that it is immune from this claim in an argument heading. (ECF No. 202 at 18.) … But even if Sabal Palm does argue that it is immune to the refusal-to-accommodate claim, this argument fails. Sabal Palm is immune from liability for suing the Fischers in the declaratory-judgment action.

Delvecchio v. Smith

558 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2008

Thus, Petitioners’ claims and request for relief clearly sound in a quiet title action. … Clearly, if it is the former, then the U.S. Government has waived its sovereign immunity pursuant to § 2410, but if it is the latter, there is no waiver of immunity and the suit may not proceed under this statute.

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

Everton v. Willard

10 Fla. L. Weekly 201 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 4, 1985

They are clearly not ministerial acts as contemplated by the Huhn decision or the dissents. Our decision in this case is consistent with our holding in Wong v. … No other courts may be established by the state, any political subdivision or any municipality... .

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.

Jones v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc.

908 So. 2d 435 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 7, 2005

Thus, this record conclusively established that Dealers clearly had the duty to defend Michael Pratt. … The court below clearly erroneously applied existing law concerning FIGA's immunity from bad faith claims into the present non bad faith simple coverage context.

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

Bonvento v. BD. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, PALM BEACH CTY.

194 So. 2d 605 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 25, 1967

If the State had waived its immunity by general law as provided by Section 22 of the Constitution, recovery in a tort action would be dependent upon establishing *609 legal liability and proving damages. … Established principles of equal protection of the laws, it seems to me, would be violated by such a concept. What actually occurs under such a situation is clearly revealed by an examination of the 1965 general acts.

State Ex Rel. Weber v. Register

67 So. 2d 619 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 13, 1953

Driver demonstrate clearly that the purchase of the property and the subsequent listing of the same for sale amounted to engaging in a "business venture" as contemplated by our statute. … Doherty, a nonresident, established an office in Iowa and carried on his business of dealing in stocks.

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.

Licea v. CURACAO DRYDOCK CO., INC.

794 F. Supp. 2d 1299 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 27, 2011

The Governments argue that because this is a proceeding in aid of execution, Section 1610’s narrower exception clearly applies. … Because Plaintiffs are clearly seeking to implead the Governments for the sole purpose of executing upon their assets to satisfy a judgment, Plaintiffs must establish an exception to immunity under Section 1610.