Notable Florida Decisions

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a photograph of the defendant posing with a 9mm handgun where multiple factors established a nexus between the photograph and the charged crimes, including the victims' fatal shooting with an unrecovered 9mm gun, 9mm ammunition found in defendant's room, the photograph's depiction of a 9mm gun consistent with the murder weapon, and the defendant's intentional deletion of the photograph the night after the crime.

A trial court may grant leave to amend a complaint to plead punitive damages if the plaintiff proffers evidence that, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, could reasonably support a finding of intentional misconduct or gross negligence as defined by statute. However, the defendant must be personally guilty of such conduct; spitting in someone's face twice does not constitute intentional misconduct or gross negligence warranting punitive damages.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion in admitting a witness's prior consistent statements under Florida Statute § 90.801(2)(b) when the defense's cross-examination implicitly charges the witness with recent fabrication motivated by a desire for a plea deal, and the prior statements were made before the witness met with the prosecutor and before any improper motive to fabricate existed.

A petition for writ of certiorari challenging a trial court's order granting the State's motion to subpoena medical records is denied when the petitioner fails to establish the requisite elements for certiorari relief.

Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident spouse properly served while voluntarily present in the state, and forum non conveniens dismissal is improper when the alternative forum is inadequate and the parties and children are Florida residents.

Medical marijuana does not qualify as a "Prescription or Nonprescription Medication" under the CBA because it is not obtained through the pharmacist-dispensing framework required by section 893.04 and is not authorized for general distribution and use without a prescription under federal or state law. The CBA's substance abuse prohibitions are not limited to on-duty conduct but extend to drug use "at any time while employed," and the definition of "Impaired" as a confirmed positive test does not require proof of contemporaneous on-duty impairment. Florida's medical marijuana constitutional ame

Jones failed to establish a prima facie case under Florida's public sector Whistle-blower's Act because she made no written and signed complaint to a specified recipient before her termination, and the statute does not recognize a cause of action for preemptive retaliation based on threatened or anticipated disclosures. Jones' public statements about the COVID-19 Dashboard were made as a government employee pursuant to her job responsibilities, not as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment. Summary judgment was properly granted

A settlement agreement is enforceable where it provides multiple forms of consideration, including a cash payment and an easement, even if one contemplated transaction (a property purchase with an express termination right) does not occur, because the settlement agreement itself anticipated this possibility and provided that the other consideration would be retained.

The trial court's denial of the petition to terminate parental rights was clearly erroneous and unsupported by competent substantial evidence as to both parents. Mother engaged in egregious conduct under Fla. Stat. § 39.806(1)(f) by abandoning her children to strangers, and Father abandoned his children under § 39.806(1)(b) by intentionally ceasing all contact during incarceration and making no provision for their care.

A citizen's arrest requires observation of a felony or breach of the peace. Apparent intoxication, trespassing without a warning, and approaching an elderly woman without threats do not constitute breach of the peace, and contraband abandoned after a person has already complied with an order to stop is involuntarily abandoned and thus protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Revoking probation based partly on an unadmitted, unproven violation that the State expressly declined to pursue constitutes fundamental error, even if not preserved at trial. The State must clearly show the erroneous consideration played no part in the revocation and sentence; absent such a showing, the case must be remanded for reconsideration.

An initial trial court judge may determine only the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify and may not pass on the truth of the facts alleged therein; a successor judge under Rule 2.330(i) is one who succeeds a judge disqualified on motion, not one who succeeds a judge who recused sua sponte. When a predecessor judge recuses herself without ruling on a pending disqualification motion, the successor judge is not a successor judge within the meaning of Rule 2.330(i) and therefore cannot rule on the truth of the allegations. A trial court maintains authority to reduce an oral ruling to a wri

King Street Baptist lacked standing to bring its action for two independent reasons: first, the 1997 warranty deed transferring the property to Northwest Baptist Church contained no reverter clause providing for reversion to King Street Baptist, thereby divesting King Street Baptist of all ownership, possessory, and reversionary interests in the property. Second, even if King Street Baptist could establish standing through assignments from minority members of Northwest Baptist Church, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes secular courts from determining whether those assignors const

A breach of contract claim survives dismissal when the defendant fails to perform a core contractual obligation, even if the contract does not explicitly address the precise mechanism or manner of breach. The independent tort doctrine bars negligence claims between parties in contractual privity when the tort claim arises solely from deficient performance of contractual duties and lacks independence in duty, conduct, damages, or public policy considerations. Corporate officers and employees are shielded from tort liability by the independent tort doctrine when their liability arises solely fro

The design and creation of a state recreation area divided by a highway, and decisions regarding the provision or non-provision of traffic control devices, constitute planning-level governmental functions protected by sovereign immunity under Florida law. The complaint's allegations conclusively established that the claims arose from discretionary planning decisions rather than operational failures, barring liability.

An association may bring both a civil action to recover a money judgment for unpaid assessments and foreclose a lien on the property, as authorized by section 720.3085(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and the Declaration does not prohibit such dual remedies when interpreted as a whole. The Declaration's section 1 establishes that assessments create both a lien and a personal obligation, and section 8's reference to remedies in the plural, combined with the broad enforcement language in article XIII, section 2, supports the availability of multiple remedies rather than an election between them. Subsequ

The mandamus petition is denied as moot because the Governor has already filled the judicial vacancy. The court does not address the merits of whether the Governor violated the 60-day appointment deadline established by Article V, section 11(c) of the Florida Constitution. Justice Tanenbaum argues in special concurrence that the court lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus to the Governor regarding his appointment power, as the Governor is immune from such writs as the supreme executive co-equal in dignity with the judiciary.

An insurer does not waive its contractual right to appraisal by making a settlement offer, maintaining its coverage determination, or closing a claim before litigation, and may invoke appraisal for the first time after a lawsuit is filed if it does so promptly through its answer and motion without actively participating in the litigation.

A lienor must strictly comply with section 713.21(4) by either commencing a foreclosure action or showing good cause why the lien should not be enforced within twenty days; attempting to resolve a contractual dispute with the association does not constitute good cause, and the trial court has no discretion to excuse non-compliance.

A trial court errs in summarily denying a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence when the motion is timely, legally sufficient, and the allegations are not inherently incredible or conclusively refuted by the record. An evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.

Caveat emptor does not bar fraud claims when a seller misrepresents material facts or employs artifice to induce a buyer to waive due diligence, and diminution in value damages are general damages properly recoverable in fraud actions involving real property.

Petitioners failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for certiorari relief because they did not demonstrate irreparable harm, as discovery denials are generally reviewable on appeal and alternative discovery methods were available.

A party must raise the failure to make required Kozel factor findings in a motion for rehearing to preserve that issue for appeal.

An order striking a motion under Rule 2.515 is not a reviewable nonfinal order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(J), and therefore an appeal of such an order must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law by striking, rather than adjudicating, a successive motion that is substantively identical to a previously denied motion and that violates Rule 2.515 by lacking good grounds and being interposed for delay. A trial court has no ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus to grant or deny a motion that, if denied,

Under a claims-made insurance policy, a claim is not made when an injury occurs or when notice of an injury is given to the insurer, but only when a suit or demand for monetary damages is actually made during the policy period or an extended discovery period. A facility manager's phone call to an insurance agent reporting a resident's death and ongoing regulatory investigations does not constitute a claim under the policy's plain language definition, which requires a suit or demand for monetary damages made on behalf of the injured person. The 2012 claims-made policy expired on January 13, 201

An order striking a motion under Rule 2.515 is not an appealable nonfinal order under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(J), which applies only to orders that "deny" Anti-SLAPP motions. A trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law by striking, rather than adjudicating, a successive motion that violates Rule 2.515 as lacking good grounds and interposed for delay. A trial court has no ministerial duty to grant or deny a motion simply because denial would result in an appealable nonfinal order.

A law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous when the officer responds to a shots-fired call, encounters a person matching a detailed BOLO description, and observes a bulge at the suspect's waistband accompanied by furtive hand movements toward that area. The totality of circumstances, not the absence of questioning or coordination with other officers, determines whether reasonable suspicion exists to conduct a limited pat-down search.

A trial court abuses its discretion in transferring venue under section 47.122 when the defendant fails to present affidavits or other evidence demonstrating that the parties or witnesses will suffer substantial inconvenience or undue expense in the plaintiff's chosen forum.

A motion for summary judgment must be denied when a declarant's testimony creates a genuine dispute of material fact regarding causation in a tortious interference claim, even if contradicted by deposition testimony.

A default final judgment entered without providing the defendant notice of the application for default is void and must be vacated regardless of whether the defendant can establish a meritorious defense or excusable neglect.