Notable Florida Decisions

A district court has jurisdiction under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) to review a nonfinal order granting summary judgment that determines a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law, even without explicit language stating so, based on the order's nature and legal effect. Florida law applied to the dispute under the significant relationships test, and Florida's Workers' Compensation Act does not cover professional athletes, so Dr. Olson's immunity defense failed.

Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising Apprendi claims because Apprendi errors are subject to harmless error review and therefore do not constitute "illegal sentences" under the rule. An "illegal sentence" is one that no judge under the entire body of sentencing laws could possibly impose, and if a sentence could have been imposed under Florida law, it cannot be illegal for purposes of rule 3.800(a). The Court receded from Plott v. State, which had held that Apprendi claims were cognizable under rule 3.800(a), because Plott was incompatible with the principle that errors subject t

The Court adopted amendments to Rule 2.540 requiring all notices of court proceedings to include ADA accommodation language in Bookman Old Style or Arial font and to reference an 'ADA Coordinator' rather than a specific individual. The Court declined to adopt the proposed Rule 2.530 amendment and referred the matter to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.

Section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes, provides broad immunity to transportation network companies for claims arising under general law that are causally connected to the TNC's ownership, operation, or maintenance of its digital network for harm resulting from a motor vehicle's use while the driver is logged on, so long as the TNC has not engaged in negligence under the statute or criminal wrongdoing and has fulfilled its statutory obligations. Subsection 18 is not a traditional affirmative defense but rather a default rule of non-liability that plaintiffs must plead around by alleging facts s

Detective Rodriguez's warrantless entry onto Cabrera's fenced property was unlawful because the State failed to produce the federal search warrant and supporting affidavit at the suppression hearing, making it impossible to determine whether probable cause existed. The good faith exception to the warrant requirement does not apply when the warrant and affidavit are not in the record and the officer has not seen the warrant. All evidence obtained from the illegal search, including statements made by Cabrera, must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

The twenty-five percent aggravators and mitigators formula, along with the selective application of rule 69V-560.1000, constitutes an unpromulgated rule that must be reversed and remanded. The Sanction Computation Worksheet, rate-versus-sample-size methodology, minor violations designation, AML Program implementation requirement, and valid driver's license requirement are not unadopted rules and do not require formal adoption. Appellants are entitled to attorney's fees under section 120.595(4)(a) for the unadopted rule violation.

When a party asserts trade secret privilege to resist document production, the trial court must first determine whether the requested materials constitute trade secrets, require the requesting party to demonstrate reasonable necessity for production, and set forth written findings before ordering disclosure. A trial court's failure to conduct this required inquiry and make these findings constitutes an abuse of discretion warranting reversal.

Prison disciplinary records reflecting violations found under a preponderance of the evidence standard in administrative proceedings are admissible at resentencing and do not violate due process when used to assess a defendant's potential for rehabilitation under section 921.1401(2)(j), Florida Statutes.

A downward departure from sentencing guidelines is improper when the trial court bases departure on a statutory ground requiring remorse but explicitly finds the defendant did not show remorse, and when a second ground rests on unproven facts from an unrelated federal case not established by preponderance of evidence at sentencing.

A trial court's order committing a defendant to DCF custody violated the essential requirements of law when issued without a sworn affidavit or statement as required by section 916.17(2) and without findings that the defendant was manifestly dangerous to himself or others as required by section 916.15(2). The petition for certiorari was granted and the commitment order quashed.

An arbitration agreement is invalid when the party challenging it establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the contracting person lacked the mental capacity to comprehend the nature and effect of the agreement. Here, competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that Jacques Moravia, who was confused, agitated, and recently diagnosed with dementia, lacked sufficient mental capacity to sign the arbitration agreement.

A motion in limine cannot be used as a substitute for a properly noticed dispositive motion such as summary judgment, and the trial court's entry of final judgment based solely on an in limine ruling violated procedural rules. The trial court erred in defining actual cash value to include only the cost of physically damaged tangible property while excluding labor, overhead, and other intangible repair costs; actual cash value includes all reasonable repair costs with depreciation applied, and the distinction between actual cash value and replacement cost value is one of valuation method, not c

A court-appointed psychologist is afforded absolute immunity from negligence claims arising from his preparation of a parenting plan recommendation during a divorce custody proceeding, as the litigation privilege protects any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding that has some relation to the proceeding. Section 61.122(4) does not abrogate this privilege because it contains no clear language doing so and operates only as an attorney's fees statute.

A trial court abuses its discretion by admitting a police officer's testimony that plastic sandwich bags are typically used by drug dealers to separate larger quantities of marijuana into predetermined sizes for sale. Such testimony constitutes inadmissible general criminal behavior evidence, and when the State relies on it in opening and closing statements without direct evidence of intent to sell, the error is not harmless.

A motion in limine cannot be used as a substitute for a properly noticed dispositive motion such as summary judgment, and the trial court's entry of final judgment based solely on an in limine ruling violated procedural rules. The trial court erred in defining actual cash value to include only the cost of physically damaged tangible property while excluding labor, overhead, and other intangible repair costs; actual cash value includes all reasonable repair costs with depreciation applied, and the distinction between actual cash value and replacement cost value is one of valuation method, not cost type.

Florida courts must apply the hierarchical deference doctrine to intra-church property disputes arising within hierarchical religious organizations, even when framed as neutral applications of state law, provided the local church seeking relief is part of the religious hierarchy and the dispute concerns the property consequences of disaffiliation. The deference doctrine does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause when applied equally to hierarchical churches' internal adjudication of property disputes, as it protects religious autonomy and freedom of association, and different

Public records requests seeking execution protocol information are not cognizable under postconviction rules absent a colorable claim for relief, and a prisoner's assertion of necessity that the state disclose protocol to challenge its constitutionality does not substitute for identifying a viable claim. A method-of-execution claim under the Eighth Amendment requires both establishing a substantial and imminent risk of serious illness and needless suffering and identifying a known and available alternative method of execution presenting significantly less severe risk of pain, and the defendant

A postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must identify the specific act or omission complained of, connect it to a recognizable legal theory, and allege facts showing entitlement to relief; a stray phrase or conclusory sentence embedded in a broader claim does not require the postconviction court to treat it as a separate claim. Even if a claim is adequately pleaded, a postconviction court need not expressly address it when the targeted record attachments permit meaningful appellate review and conclusively refute the claim, provided the State meets its burden of s

A trial court errs as a matter of law when it adopts a proposed order verbatim from one party, particularly when the adopted order contains material internal conflicts, diverges from the court's oral rulings, is unsupported by the record, and was entered without demonstrating independent judicial decision-making. An Offsite Parking Agreement between Tab and Amera, recorded in 2004 pursuant to local land development regulations, created an easement (not merely a license) running with the land and binding successors and assigns, which was transferred to SCI upon its purchase of the Tab Property

The state established sufficient nexus between the baseball bat and the charged crime for its admission into evidence based on the child's eyewitness identification of a black and blue bat, medical examiner testimony that injuries were consistent with a cylindrical object, the bat's discovery soon after the crime in the victim's bedroom, and the defendant's purchase of the bat ten days before the offense. The trial court did not improperly rely on uncharged first-degree murder conduct when sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment; the court articulated four permissible sentencing criteria

Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852, public records requests in capital postconviction cases must be tied to a colorable claim for postconviction relief and cannot be used as a fishing expedition to discover whether a claim might exist; the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law by denying Willacy's public records requests because he failed to establish such a nexus. The trial court has discretion to deny a motion for in camera inspection of exempt or confidential records when the movant has merely speculated that a colorable claim might be uncovered

Under Florida law, a provision that expressly acknowledges the parties have not agreed on essential terms of compensation and commits only to future good-faith negotiations constitutes an unenforceable "agreement to agree" that cannot form the basis for contract liability. A fiduciary duty claim cannot be maintained where it is wholly dependent upon and not independent from an alleged contractual relationship that is itself unenforceable, as allowing such claims would circumvent the requirement that contracts contain definite essential terms. A fraudulent inducement claim fails where the alleg

Under the unambiguous language of the lease, the rent commencement date did not occur because Bal Harbour did not substantially complete its initial work and open for business in the leased premises. The trial court erred by relying on pre-contractual emails to narrow the definition of initial work to 'absolute minimum' improvements, when the lease provision for alterations explicitly permitted cosmetic renovations including furniture, fixtures, equipment, and changes to floors, lights, and painting. The trial court also erred in finding Bal Harbour breached an implied covenant of good faith a