Plain Meaning Rule

2,382 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 953 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D.
  450 So. 2d 217· Fla.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 1209×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the discovery privilege in section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes, protecting medical review committee proceedings from disclosure is not limited to medical malpractice actions but extends to defamation actions arising from matters reviewed by hos
• Hurst v. State
  202 So. 3d 40· Fla.· 2016-10-14 ·cited 679×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida requiring jury factfinding in capital sentencing also requires jury unanimity on all critical sentencing findings and the death recommendation itself. The court vacated Hurst's death sentenc
• Pardo v. State
  596 So. 2d 665· Fla.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 438×·via Plain Language Of Statute
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a child victim's hearsay statements qualifying under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(23) may be admissible even when the child testifies fully at trial and the statements are characterized as prior consistent statements, but such statements remain subject
• A. R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey
  102 Fla. 1141· Fla.· 1931-10-08 ·cited 414×
  This case addresses whether filing a lawsuit within the statutory claim period for an estate, but without swearing to and presenting the claim to the county judge, is sufficient to avoid the statute of nonclaim. The court held that it is not, and the claim is barred.
• Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson
  756 So. 2d 29· Fla.· 2000-03-23 ·cited 290×·via Plain Language Rule
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit regarding insurance policy interpretation. The Court held that a tractor and trailer, each separately insured and listed in the policy declarations, should be treated as two separate covered automob
• Van Pelt v. Hilliard
  75 Fla. 792· Fla.· 1918-03-08 ·cited 287×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld Chapter 7287 (1917), which prohibited clubs and associations of persons from serving intoxicating liquors. The court held that a restaurant proprietor who allows patrons to deposit their liquor for service in a social setting constitutes a "club o
• Daniels v. Fla. Dep't OF Health
  898 So. 2d 61· Fla.· 2005-03-10 ·cited 272×·via Plain Language Of Statute
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an individual owner of a corporation who is sued in their individual capacity by a state agency is not entitled to attorney's fees under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (FEAJA), even if they are the sole owner and control the business.
• Lamont v. State
  610 So. 2d 435· Fla.· 1992-12-24 ·cited 220×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that defendants convicted of life felonies are not subject to enhanced sentencing as habitual offenders under section 775.084 because the statute's sentencing provisions for enhanced terms do not apply to life felonies. The Court rejected the Third
• Williams v. State
  186 So. 3d 989· Fla.· 2016-03-03 ·cited 217×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that section 775.087(2)(d) of the 10-20-Life statute does not mandate consecutive sentences for multiple qualifying firearm offenses arising from a single criminal episode, despite the statute's use of the mandatory term "shall." The Court reversed
• United States v. Matra
  841 F.2d 837· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 207×·via Plain Language Statutory Construction
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of an unregistered machine gun, and using a machine gun during a drug trafficking offense, and that possession with intent to distribute qualifi
• Martinez v. State
  981 So. 2d 449· Fla.· 2008-02-21 ·cited 206×·via Plain Language Statutory Construction
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the forcible-felony instruction under section 776.041(1) may only be given when a defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony separate from the crime for which self-defense is claimed. Although the trial court erred in giving the i
• State v. Carter
  835 So. 2d 259· Fla.· 2002-12-05 ·cited 205×·via Plain And Ordinary Meaning
  The Florida Supreme Court held that failure to file a single monthly probation report may justify revocation of probation if the violation is willful and substantial, rejecting a per se rule that such a failure can never support revocation. The Court quashed the First District's
• Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  759 F.2d 905· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 202×
  The court held that the petitioners' challenge to the Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) was untimely because it was filed outside the statutory ninety-day review period, and the claim was ripe for review during that period.
• Mosley v. State
  209 So. 3d 1248· Fla.· 2016-12-22 ·cited 199×·via Plain Language
  John Mosley was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and infant son in April 2004 and sentenced to death for the child's murder and life imprisonment for the girlfriend's murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence on direct appeal. In this post
• Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.
  845 So. 2d 161· Fla.· 2003-04-10 ·cited 199×·via Plain Language Rule
  Swire Pacific Holdings sought insurance coverage under a builder's risk policy for $4.5 million in costs to repair structural deficiencies caused by design errors. The Florida Supreme Court held that the policy's Design Defect Exclusion Clause bars coverage for repair costs and t
• Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  913 So. 2d 528· Fla.· 2005-09-22 ·cited 197×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that commercial general liability insurance policies' products-completed operations hazard exclusions bar coverage for lawsuits by municipalities against a gun manufacturer seeking reimbursement for costs incurred due to gun violence. The court inte
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols
  932 So. 2d 1067· Fla.· 2006-06-01 ·cited 196×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the offer of judgment statute applies to personal injury protection (PIP) insurance suits and that a PIP claim is a "civil action for damages." However, the Court affirmed the reversal of attorney's fees because the insurer's settlement proposa
• Green v. State
  604 So. 2d 471· Fla.· 1992-08-27 ·cited 196×
  Items of personal apparel, such as common gloves, are not included under the terms 'tool, machine, or implement' as used in section 810.06, Florida Statutes.
• Rollins v. Pizzarelli
  761 So. 2d 294· Fla.· 2000-05-04 ·cited 185×
  The Florida Supreme Court interpreted the term "paid or payable" in section 627.736(3) of the Florida Insurance Code to mean only personal injury protection (PIP) benefits that have been incurred and are currently owed, not future benefits for medical expenses not yet incurred. T
• Kasischke v. State
  991 So. 2d 803· Fla.· 2008-07-10 ·cited 184×·via Plain Language Interpretation
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding the interpretation of a statute requiring judges to impose conditions on sexual offenders on probation or community control. The Court held that a prohibition on possessing pornographic material appli
• State v. Barnes
  595 So. 2d 22· Fla.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 182×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the 1988 habitual felony offender statute does not require sequential convictions, overturning the First District Court of Appeal's decision that vacated Barnes' habitual offender sentence. The Court determined that the statute's plain language
• State v. Burris
  875 So. 2d 408· Fla.· 2004-04-08 ·cited 170×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an automobile cannot be "carried" as a deadly weapon under the robbery enhancement statute, Section 812.13(2)(a), despite being capable of inflicting serious injury. The Court rejected the First District's broader interpretation of "carry" to m
• Larimore v. State
  2 So. 3d 101· Fla.· 2008-12-11 ·cited 169×·via Plain Language
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act (Jimmy Ryce Act) requires that an individual be in lawful custody when the State initiates civil commitment proceedings in order for a circuit court to have jurisdiction over th
• Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fla. v. Broward Williams
  212 So. 2d 777· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-07-23 ·cited 168×
  American Bankers Life Assurance Company challenged the Insurance Commissioner's construction of Florida Statute Section 624.0227, which requires life insurance applications to be "taken by" a licensed agent. The court held that "taken by" does not require the agent to be physical
• Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch
  107 So. 3d 362· Fla.· 2013-01-10 ·cited 166×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered four certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit concerning attorney's fees in a contract dispute between Dr. Horowitch and Diamond Aircraft Industries. The Court held that a prevailing defendant can recover FDUTPA attorney's fees even when an
• ST. Petersburg Bank & Tr. Co. v. Hamm
  414 So. 2d 1071· Fla.· 1982-05-13 ·cited 161×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict in usury law between two district courts regarding how to calculate whether a loan note exceeded usury limits when a loan charge was assessed. The Court held that section 687.03(3)'s spreading statute should be applied according to it
• Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co.
  819 So. 2d 732· Fla.· 2002-05-23 ·cited 159×·via Plain Language Rule Of Contract Interpretation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an automobile collision insurance policy providing for repair or replacement of damaged vehicles "with other of like kind and quality" does not obligate the insurer to compensate the insured for diminution in market value ("inherent diminished
• Brooks v. State
  918 So. 2d 181· Fla.· 2005-06-23 ·cited 158×·via Plain Language
  This case involves Lamar Brooks' appeal of his conviction and death sentences for the first-degree murders of Rachel Carlson and her infant daughter, Alexis Stuart. This is Brooks' second appeal after his initial conviction was reversed in 2001 due to erroneous hearsay testimony.
• L.B. v. State
  700 So. 2d 370· Fla.· 1997-10-02 ·cited 155×·via Plain And Ordinary Meaning
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Second District Court of Appeal's decision that section 790.001(13)'s exception for 'common pocketknives' was unconstitutionally vague. The Court held that the term provides ordinary citizens fair notice of forbidden conduct and vacated the
• W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. SEE
  79 So. 3d 1· Fla.· 2012-01-12 ·cited 154×
  West Florida Regional Medical Center sought review of a First District decision requiring disclosure of a blank application for medical staff privileges under Florida's constitutional Amendment 7 (patients' right to know about adverse medical incidents). The Florida Supreme Court
• Rudolph Acosta, M.D. v. Richter
  671 So. 2d 149· Fla.· 1996-01-18 ·cited 152×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that section 455.241(2) creates a physician-patient privilege of confidentiality for medical information, with a limited exception allowing defendant health care providers to disclose patient information when defending themselves in medical negligen
• Se. Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't OF Natural Res.
  453 So. 2d 1351· Fla.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 142×·via Plain And Ordinary Meaning
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the state fish trap statute applies to extraterritorial waters beyond Florida's territorial limits. The Court held that the statute, which prohibits possession and use of unlawful fish traps, is constitutional as applied within Florida'
• Asay v. State
  210 So. 3d 1· Fla.· 2016-12-22 ·cited 141×·via Plain Language Rule
  Mark James Asay, a death row inmate, challenged his death sentence on grounds including retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida (which requires jury findings for capital sentencing), newly discovered evidence, Brady violations, and lack of effective counsel. The Florida Supre
• Streeter v. Sullivan
  509 So. 2d 268· Fla.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 141×·via Plain Language
  The Florida Supreme Court held that corporate officers and executives are "employees" under Florida's Workers' Compensation Act and can be held liable to fellow employees for acts of gross negligence, regardless of whether those acts involve an affirmative act beyond the employer
• State v. J.M.
  824 So. 2d 105· Fla.· 2002-07-03 ·cited 140×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an adjudication of delinquency does not constitute a felony criminal conviction for purposes of designating a person as a sexual predator under the Florida Sexual Predators Act. The court rejected the Second District's contrary holding in Payne
• Tillman v. State
  934 So. 2d 1263· Fla.· 2006-07-06 ·cited 138×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts on whether section 776.051(1), which prohibits force to resist arrest regardless of illegality, extends to non-arrest police encounters. The Court held that the statute applies only to actual arrests, requiring
• Knowles v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc.
  898 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 2004-12-16 ·cited 135×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a personal representative of a deceased nursing home resident may bring a statutory cause of action under section 400.023(1) only when the resident's death resulted from the deprivation or infringement of statutory rights, not for violations th
• State v. Egan
  287 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1973-12-12 ·cited 134×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 775.01, which adopts the English common law of crimes as part of Florida law, rejecting the trial court's determination that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and obsolete. The Court held that the statute is
• McLAUGHLIN v. State
  721 So. 2d 1170· Fla.· 1998-12-17 ·cited 132×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Federal Protection Service officers are not "law enforcement officers" under Florida's assault-on-law-enforcement enhancement statute, which by its plain language applies only to state and local officers. The Court quashed McLaughlin's convicti
• Barnes v. State
  576 So. 2d 758· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-02-22 ·cited 132×
  Anthony Barnes challenges his enhanced sentence as a habitual felony offender, arguing that his two prior felony convictions do not qualify because they occurred on the same date and were sentenced together, not sequentially. The court reverses the enhanced sentence, holding that
• Diamond Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & W. J. Usery
  528 F.2d 645· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-15 ·cited 127×
  The court held that the OSHA regulation requiring standard railings around open-sided floors does not apply to open-sided roofs because the regulation explicitly distinguishes between floors and roofs.
• Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Contractpoint Fla. Parks, LLC
  986 So. 2d 1260· Fla.· 2008-07-10 ·cited 126×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that section 11.066, Florida Statutes, does not prohibit state agencies from paying valid breach of contract judgments absent a specific legislative appropriation. The court interpreted the statute narrowly to apply only to judgments arising from th
• Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid
  930 So. 2d 598· Fla.· 2006-05-11 ·cited 124×·via Plain Language Interpretation
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the district courts regarding whether Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525's 30-day deadline for motions to tax costs applies when a final judgment reserves jurisdiction over the issue. The Court held that the bright-line 30-da
• Seagrave v. State
  802 So. 2d 281· Fla.· 2001-07-12 ·cited 122×
  Steven Seagrave was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child and sentenced with 40 victim injury points for "sexual contact" under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The Florida Supreme Court held that victim injury points for "sexual contact" are not limited to acts con
• PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols
  533 So. 2d 281· Fla.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 118×
  Sale of electricity to a single customer makes the provider a public utility subject to PSC regulation under section 366.02(1), Florida Statutes, because the phrase 'to the public' means 'to any member of the public,' not merely to the general public indiscriminately.
• Fla. League OF Cities v. Smith
  607 So. 2d 397· Fla.· 1992-10-29 ·cited 115×
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus petition seeking to remove a proposed constitutional amendment from the ballot, holding that the amendment would not trigger a constitutional repealer provision affecting homestead tax exemptions. The Court found the repealer's
• GTC, Inc. v. Edgar
  967 So. 2d 781· Fla.· 2007-09-06 ·cited 113×
  GTC, Inc., a price-capped local telecommunications company, appealed a Public Service Commission order limiting its hurricane cost recovery surcharge under section 364.051(4)(b), Florida Statutes. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the PSC's interpretation that the statute grants
• Fla. State Racing Comm'n & Clarence H. Ratliff v. McLAUGHLIN
  102 So. 2d 574· Fla.· 1958-03-26 ·cited 113×
  The Florida Supreme Court interpreted Section 550.05 of the Florida Statutes to determine whether it prohibits harness horse racing within 100 miles of an existing dog racing facility. The court held that the statute's plain language forbids issuance of a permit for a harness rac
• The Life Ins. Co. OF Va. v. Leroy J. Shifflet de bonis non of the Estate of Florence I. Shifflet
  201 So. 2d 715· Fla.· 1967-05-31 ·cited 112×
  A certified question from the Fifth Circuit regarding interpretation of Florida Statute Section 627.01081 concerning misrepresentations in insurance applications. The case resolves whether materially incorrect statements on an insurance application must be made with knowledge of
• Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Alphonso Butler
  314 So. 2d 567· Fla.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 111×
  Stuyvesant Insurance Company sought review of a District Court decision that reversed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that a 17-year-old shrimping vessel crewman was not a 'minor' within the insurance policy's exclusionary clause. The Florida Supreme Court affir