Notable Florida Decisions

Rule 2.515(d)(2) is amended to require signers to represent that legal authorities identified in filings exist and are accurately cited, and courts may impose sanctions including reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal, costs, attorneys' fees, or other sanctions for filings inconsistent with this representation after notice and opportunity to be heard.

The circuit court properly summarily denied Lukehart's successive postconviction motion because his as-applied Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida's lethal injection protocol was untimely and meritless, his facial challenge was meritless as the protocol had been previously upheld as constitutional, his due process challenge to the warrant timeline was meritless, and the denial of his public records requests was not an abuse of discretion. To succeed on an as-applied method-of-execution challenge, a defendant must establish that the method presents a substantial and imminent risk of serious i

An administrative agency may not reject an ALJ's factual findings supported by competent, substantial evidence unless it first determines and states with particularity that the findings lack such evidence or that the proceedings violated essential requirements of law. When an ALJ finds that an agency relied on an unadopted rule and declines to address other elements of entitlement, the agency cannot recast the facts to establish an alternate basis for denial without addressing the disputed issues the ALJ left unresolved. The Department's attempt to affirm its denial based on statutory and regu

Section 57.105(7) reciprocity applies to make a unilateral attorney's fees provision in a contract reciprocal, and a party may recover attorney's fees for defending against a prejudgment writ of garnishment when those proceedings are ancillary to and have a clear and direct relationship with the underlying contract dispute. A contingency risk multiplier may not be applied to an attorney's fees award unless there is direct evidence that the relevant market required the multiplier to obtain competent counsel, and inference alone is insufficient to satisfy this requirement.

The corporate veil may not be pierced absent a showing of improper conduct, and a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the shareholder dominated and controlled the corporation as an alter ego, the corporate form was used fraudulently or improperly, and such use caused injury to the claimant. Jhaveri failed to meet this burden because Rivas's interchangeable use of entity names was inadvertent, there was no evidence of improper use of the corporate form, and no causal connection existed between any alleged improper conduct and the breach of the settlement agreement.

Under Florida's sovereign immunity statute, postjudgment interest is properly included in a judgment and calculated on actual damages found by the jury, but any setoff for prior payments by the sovereign defendant must be applied against the statutory damages cap, not the jury verdict.

A partial final judgment disposing of a claim that is interrelated with other claims remaining pending must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as it constitutes an improper piecemeal appeal. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by stipulation of the parties.

Surplusage in a charging document that includes "attempt to" language while citing the completed offense statute does not constitute fundamental error when the defendant had actual notice of the completed crime, the evidence supported the completed offense, and no double jeopardy concerns exist.

When a defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to preserve a right to appeal, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing if the record does not conclusively refute the defendant's allegations that he would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel's error.

Attempted manslaughter by act qualifies as a forcible felony under Florida's VCC statute because the use of physical force or violence is a necessary element of the crime and because attempted manslaughter involves a level of force comparable to the enumerated forcible felony of manslaughter. The VCC statute is not facially unconstitutional under Erlinger because circumstances exist in which the statute could be constitutionally applied, such as when a jury determines the necessary factual findings beyond a reasonable doubt, when a defendant stipulates to the findings, or when a defendant know

Income Deduction Orders under section 61.1301 may not be used to collect attorney's fees solely or in their entirety, but only to the extent the fees were incurred in establishing or enforcing alimony or child support obligations. The trial court must determine which portion of the awarded attorney's fees relates to support obligations and issue IDOs limited to that amount.

Improper bolstering of a child victim's credibility through testimony from multiple witnesses, including law enforcement officers, constitutes reversible error when the case turns solely on the victim's credibility and no physical evidence exists. The State's reliance on such testimony in closing argument further compounds the error and cannot be deemed harmless.

A trial court abuses its discretion when it dismisses a complaint for failure to comply with a court order without making express written findings of fact regarding the Kozel factors and without finding that the conduct was willful or deliberate. Dismissal is the most severe sanction and should be employed only in extreme circumstances.

Penalty-phase counsel was not ineffective for declining to present mental-health evidence based on expert opinion that such evidence would be unfavorable, for not presenting additional background witnesses whose testimony would have been cumulative, or for stipulating to prior convictions while objecting to the aggravator. Under State v. Poole, neither the Sixth nor Eighth Amendment requires a jury to make sufficiency or weighing determinations in capital sentencing; the jury need only unanimously find a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, which was satisfied here by

An arbitrator has statutory and contractual authority to decide attorney's fees claims under Florida Statute § 682.11(2), and when parties agree to arbitrate all disputes, attorney's fees claims arising from those disputes are subject to arbitration rather than court determination. A party that elects arbitration and requests attorney's fees before the arbitrator cannot later petition a trial court for those fees if the arbitrator declines to award them.

A trial court order compelling disclosure of confidential mental health treatment records and medications violates a party's constitutional right to privacy and statutory psychotherapist-patient privilege when the party has not placed her mental or emotional condition at issue through pleadings or claims, rendering the information irrelevant to the litigation.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting billing records under the business records exception based on an affidavit from the Republic's Attorney General establishing the foundational requirements of section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes. The attorney fee award of $16.6 million was affirmed because the trial court made sufficient findings on the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended under the Rowe factors, properly rejected Ferguson's duplicative work objections by finding any duplication was necessary given one firm's disqualification, and reasonably credited the Rep

Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by misadvising the defendant regarding the strength of the case and sentencing exposure, and the defendant demonstrated prejudice by establishing a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea offer had he received proper advice. The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring affirmative evidence that the plea would have been accepted rather than assessing the reasonable probability thereof.

A trial court errs in imputing income to a parent based solely on capacity for full-time employment without addressing childcare responsibilities and identifying competent, substantial evidence of voluntary underemployment. Retroactive child support calculated using improperly imputed income or a guideline worksheet that cannot be reconciled with the trial court's findings regarding actual timesharing must be reversed and remanded for recalculation.

A general contractor is not vicariously liable for a painting subcontractor's negligence where the written agreement designates the subcontractor as an independent contractor and the actual relationship reflects control over outcomes and scheduling rather than control over methods of work. The subcontractor's ownership of a separate business, use of own equipment, work for other clients, and payment on a per-job basis establish independent contractor status.

A trial court has no discretion to appoint private court-appointed co-counsel where a defendant is already represented by privately retained counsel in a capital case; the defendant must choose between retaining his counsel or dismissing retained counsel to seek court-appointed counsel.

Once domicile is established, it continues unless there is a showing of a change of residence coupled with an intention to remain permanently in the new location; the daughters failed to rebut the presumption of continuing Florida domicile through competent, substantial evidence.

An order authorizing involuntary psychotropic medication for a forensic client is constitutional and statutory when supported by competent, substantial evidence that the client is clinically incompetent to make treatment decisions and the medication is essential to his care and the safety of others, without requiring the Sell dangerousness analysis.

A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 motion alleging newly discovered evidence unless the affidavit is inherently incredible or obviously immaterial to the verdict; summary denial based on closing argument and incomplete trial testimony is improper.

The court has jurisdiction over a nonfinal order granting summary judgment that determines a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law, even without specific or explicit language stating so, based on the order's nature and legal effect. Florida law applied to the dispute, and Florida's Workers' Compensation Act does not provide immunity for claims involving professional athletes.

A motion to dismiss in a dependency case is analogous to a directed verdict and is proper only when no reasonable inferences from the evidence could support the moving party's position; the trial court must view all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h) requires strict compliance with its mandate that a party file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial in the same document within 20 days of service of the arbitrator's decision, and no action or inaction other than filing such notice constitutes a rejection of the arbitration decision.

When an insurer establishes that an insured has materially breached a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer is presumed, and the burden shifts to the insured to demonstrate that the breach did not prejudice the insurer. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice.

The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing with prejudice the parents' loss of filial consortium and breach of contract claims, as these claims had not been previously amended and dismissal would not prejudice the defendants or be futile. The trial court properly dismissed with prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty claims because no fiduciary relationship exists between a paid child-care provider and parents, making amendment futile. The trial court properly dismissed with prejudice the IIED and NIED claims because the parents were not present during the incident and did not satisfy

The court affirmed the summary denial of Knight's successive postconviction motion on all three claims. The unidentified fingerprint on a murder weapon did not constitute newly discovered evidence because it was known at trial, presented to the jury, and would not probably produce an acquittal given the overwhelming forensic and circumstantial evidence of Knight's guilt. The lethal injection claim was untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless because Knight failed to establish that the method of execution presents a substantial and imminent risk of serious harm or identify a significantly l