Notable Florida Decisions

A directed verdict in a negligence action is improper when conflicting expert testimony exists regarding the sequence of events and causation; the trial court may not weigh competing expert opinions or reject one expert's testimony as physically impossible based on another expert's analysis.

A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment without conducting an evidentiary hearing when the motion raises a colorable and legally sufficient claim supported by a sworn statement, even if the movant is proceeding pro se.

A health care provider owes no duty of care to an outpatient after the patient terminates the physician-patient relationship and is discharged from care, absent a specific statute or policy imposing such a duty.

A compound containing the base 2-amino-1-phenyl-1-propanone structure described in § 893.03(1)(c)191.a is a substituted cathinone under Florida law regardless of further modifications, because the statutory phrases "whether or not" and "with or without" make clear that such further modifications are irrelevant to the classification.

A right of first refusal ripens into an irrevocable option upon the owner's entry into a purchase agreement with a third party, and when a condominium declaration provides that notice of exercising the right is effective upon certified mailing, proof of actual receipt is not required. The seller's failure to specifically plead a condition precedent defense waives that defense.

A petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence may be filed in any county within the judicial circuit where the petitioner resides, and the special venue provision in Florida Statute 741.30(1)(j) supersedes the general venue statute. The existence of related family litigation in another county does not provide grounds to dismiss for improper venue.

The prohibition against impermissible stacking of inferences remains valid in Florida as a separate evidentiary principle distinct from the special circumstantial evidence standard eliminated in Bush v. State. A factfinder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence but cannot draw an inference from an inference or substitute inferences for direct evidence.

A settlement agreement between a local government and a property owner under the Bert Harris Act is not a "development order" subject to Chapter 163 review merely because it may affect future development, as a development order must result from an application for a development permit, not from a negotiated settlement of a property rights dispute. Judicial review of a Bert Harris Act settlement agreement under section 70.001(4)(d)1 is permissible, though not mandatory, because the statutory presumption that such agreements protect the public interest is rebuttable and the Legislature granted ci

A party seeking to set aside a judicial foreclosure sale must prove both an adequate equitable factor (such as irregularity, gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake) and that the factor resulted in injustice to the complaining party; mere proof of an equitable factor without resulting injustice is insufficient. The trial court's factual finding that the clerk did not prevent the bank from bidding is supported by competent substantial evidence and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The bank failed to prove the clerk's affidavit requirement was irregular because the b

A warrantless search of a residence is unjustified when the totality of circumstances does not establish that officers had an objectively reasonable belief that exigent circumstances existed. The detectives' warrantless entry into Ford's home was unconstitutional because, although they credibly testified to concerns about Ford's welfare based on prior statements and demeanor, the trial court properly found that these facts amounted only to a hunch or speculation, not an objectively reasonable belief in a medical emergency, particularly given the detectives' failure to use less intrusive means

A defendant waives a pretrial motion to suppress by affirmatively stating "no objection" when the evidence is offered at trial, even though section 90.104(1) provides that a party need not renew an objection after a definitive pretrial ruling. The warrantless search of Lopez's pockets was reasonable under both the community caretaking exception and the emergency medical exception to the warrant requirement, as the officer responded to an active overdose and the search was necessary to ensure safety.

Appellate courts reviewing a trial court's dismissal for fraud on the court must apply traditional standards of review: de novo review to the trial court's legal conclusions regarding whether fraud occurred, competent substantial evidence review to its factual findings regarding the nature and extent of fraudulent conduct, and abuse of discretion review to its choice of sanction. The "more stringent" or "narrowed" abuse of discretion standard applied by some district courts is inconsistent with established appellate review principles and should not be used. When a trial court properly conclude

Rule 4-8.2(a) is unconstitutional as applied to a lawyer's campaign speech criticizing a fellow candidate for state attorney because it imposes a content-based restriction on protected political speech that fails strict scrutiny. The Bar's interest in protecting judicial system integrity, while compelling in some contexts such as speech about sitting judges or speech in ongoing litigation, does not justify restricting vigorous debate about candidates for partisan legal offices like state attorney. State attorney is a partisan political office markedly different from judicial office, and candid

The UPRD had authority to issue the 2024 bonds because the referendum, held after the Board cured the ambiguous bracketed language in the 2019 indenture, was a condition precedent to determining the district's authority under chapter 75, Florida Statutes. The UPRD met its burden of proving that the special assessment conferred special benefits exceeding the debt burden through legislative findings and expert testimony establishing a logical relationship between the recreational improvements and enhanced property values, without requiring empirical dollar-for-dollar comparisons. The appellant r

Workplace assault injuries are compensable under Florida workers' compensation law when an employee in the course and scope of employment is assaulted by a third-party tortfeasor, provided the claimant establishes work-relatedness. Work-relatedness may be established either by proving the assailant had a work-related motive (such as robbery) or, independently, by proving the employee's overall job duties and work environment exposed him to increased risks and hazards that contributed to the injury. The statutory phrase 'arising out of work performed' requires a nexus or link to the employee's

A restaurant owner owes a duty of reasonable care to patrons to prevent an employee infected with a contagious disease from having contact with them, and this duty is triggered by actual or constructive knowledge that the employee has any contagious disease, not knowledge of a specific disease such as tuberculosis. Constructive knowledge may be inferred when a dangerous condition—such as visible symptoms of contagious illness—exists for a sufficient length of time that the owner, exercising ordinary care, should have known of it and taken action to remedy it. Evidence that a server had a heavy

An Apprendi/Erlinger claim that jury findings were required for a VFOSC designation is a procedural error not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) because it alleges an error in the sentencing process rather than an error in the sentencing order itself. A trial court's failure to make written findings on whether a VFOSC poses a danger to the community under section 948.06(8)(e) is harmless error when the trial court revokes probation and imposes a prison sentence regardless, because such findings only determine whether revocation is mandatory or discretionary, not wheth

A defendant cannot invoke a plea agreement as an absolute bar to civil discovery without first utilizing the agreement's pre-publication review procedure to determine whether disclosure of allegedly confidential information is actually prohibited. The state secrets privilege belongs exclusively to the United States government and cannot be asserted by a private party; absent the government's assertion of the privilege, a defendant's speculative claim that information is classified is insufficient to establish irreparable harm for certiorari purposes. Discovery requests regarding a defendant's

The circuit court properly summarily denied Duckett's fifth successive postconviction motion because the DNA testing results were inconclusive and therefore did not constitute newly discovered evidence that would probably produce an acquittal on retrial, and Florida does not recognize independent actual innocence claims in postconviction proceedings.

Section 925.11, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 do not contemplate an evidentiary hearing after DNA testing results have been provided to the court, defendant, and prosecuting authority, and therefore the circuit court's order denying such a hearing is not appealable.

The equitable defense of laches bars a former wife's claim for child support arrearages during a seven-year cohabitation period where the former husband reasonably relied on an informal agreement not to enforce support, paid substantial in-kind expenses, and suffered material prejudice from the delay in asserting the claim.

The trial court erred in finding that the club owner had standing to sue for breach of contract as an intended third-party beneficiary when he was not a party to the performance agreement and the contract provisions did not clearly express intent to primarily and directly benefit him. The FDUTPA claim also failed because the plaintiff was an Arkansas resident and FDUTPA relief is available only to Florida residents.

A contingency fee multiplier is improper without a pre-existing contingency fee agreement and a showing that the multiplier was necessary to obtain competent counsel; mortgage interest damages are unavailable when the prevailing party did not secure a mortgage; and post-judgment interest on a non-final order must be clarified as pre-judgment interest or reversed.

A defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails when the defendant does not establish both that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced the defense.

Certiorari does not lie to review an administrative order of a chief judge that prescribes prospective policy and is not connected to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. An administrative order that formulates general rules of policy without adjudicating a dispute between parties, resolving facts or law as to a particular defendant, or arising from a pending case is not amenable to certiorari review. The 2025 amendment to Rule 2.215(e)(2) does not expand the constitutional jurisdiction of the district courts of appeal to review such orders, as subject matter jurisdiction is a constitution

The trial court did not err in denying Adelson's motion for change of venue because Adelson failed to preserve the issue by not filing a written motion with supporting affidavits and by not renewing the motion before the jury was sworn; even if preserved, Adelson failed to meet his heavy burden of showing that pretrial publicity was so pervasive and inflammatory that an impartial jury could not be seated in Leon County. The trial court did not err in denying Adelson's motion to strike the venire panel because Adelson failed to preserve the issue by not filing a written motion and not renewing

A mandamus petition challenging eligibility for conditional release supervision is not a collateral criminal proceeding exempt from filing fee liens because conditional release supervision does not directly affect the amount of time an inmate must actually spend in prison.

The postconviction court properly denied Rhodes's Brady claim because his recanting witnesses lacked credibility and, even if credible, the suppressed evidence would not have changed the verdict given the substantial other evidence of guilt. The Giglio claim failed because Rhodes did not establish that the State knowingly presented false testimony. The Massiah claim failed because Rhodes's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached when law enforcement allegedly elicited statements through Duranseau at the Citrus County Jail, and Rhodes presented no evidence that Allen and Bennett acted

Rule 1.442(c)(3) requires apportionment of a joint proposal regardless of whether the proposal concerns a unified, single claim. The Mackensens' settlement proposal was invalid because it was submitted by two distinct parties (Wolfgang and Nadja Mackensen) without allocating separate amounts to each, and the rule's plain language and the Court's precedents mandate strict compliance with the apportionment requirement without exceptions based on the nature of the underlying claim or the difficulty of apportionment.

A person who violates a prior court order enjoining unlicensed practice of law may be found guilty of indirect criminal contempt and subjected to probation, GPS monitoring, and a suspended jail sentence.