Civil Litigation
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Attorney Cases: 21
A plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against Sea World, who settled the claim and brought a subsequent indemnity suit against another company. At trial, a jury determined that the company was completely responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries and that it must reimburse Sea World the amount of settlement, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court set aside the attorney’s fee award, though, because Sea World did not present independent
expert testimony showing them to be reasonable. The district court reversed as to the attorney’s fee ruling, holding that Sea World was not obligated to offer independent expert testimony on the subject. The Court noted that such testimony was required in cases where one party is seeking to obtain fees and costs from an opposing party stemming from that same action. The fees and costs in question here, however, had been previously incurred and did not require such testimony.
Read More
A plaintiff filed a personal injury case that was sent to binding arbitration. The plaintiff was awarded $7,500 at arbitration, but filed for a trial de novo. At trial, the defense prevailed. After the final judgment was entered, the defense moved to collect fees and costs from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, moved to strike this motion because the defense did not seek such fees and costs before the final judgment was entered. The trial court found for the defendants and ordered the plaintiff to pay fees and costs. The district court affirmed holding that, although the failure to plead for fees and costs before final judgment is a bar when such costs existed from the outset of the case, there is an exception when those costs arise during the trial. Because the fees and costs in this case arose late in the process, making it difficult for the defendants to know what to plead for, this case met the exception.
Read More
A corporation filed a motion for attorneys' fees based on the opposing party’s denial of a pretrial settlement proposal. The trial court found that the settlement proposal was ambiguous about which claims would be settled upon acceptance and denied the motion. The appellate court ruled that the trial court's finding was erroneous. Even though the corporation's proposal did not address the claims or interests of other parties to the action, this did not create ambiguity, and was irrelevant. The offer proposed to resolve all counterclaims against one party and also all claims that the party might have had against the corporation. The settlement proposal did not require speculation on how the settlement would be procedurally consummated. The offer proposed to settle all claims identified in the offer and provided the husband with an option of how the settlement would have been resolved – either the corporation would accept a specific monetary amount from the party as payment for the corporations claims against the party or, in the alternative, the party could consent to judgment against himself and in favor of the corporation for the specified amount. The court held that the offer was free of ambiguity and the corporation was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under § 768.79, Fla. Stat.
Read More
In order to have an actionable negligence claim against a government entity, there must be a common law or statutory duty regarding the alleged negligent conduct. In this case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that probation supervision is a discretionary government function for which there is no duty of care to individual probationers or corresponding tort liability.
Read More
Where the wrong defendant is named in a complaint, but the named and un-named defendants shared the same officers, directors, and registered agent, there is a sufficient identity of interest between the two defendants so as not to prejudice the newly added defendant. Therefore, a complaint that names the wrong defendant, but sufficient identity of interest exists, should not be barred on statute of limitation grounds under the relation back doctrine.
Read More
The Court reiterated its holding in Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001), that the negligent mode of operation theory is still viable and recognizes that the duty of care required under negligence law may not only be detecting dangerous conditions and correcting them, but also taking reasonable precautions to reduce, minimize, or eliminate foreseeable risks associated with a specific method of operation.
Read More
Pursuant to
Read More
Jordan v. Masters
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1454 (Fla. 4th DCA June 28, 2002)
2002-06-28
ATTORNEY
In closing arguments, lawyers are permitted to argue adverse inferences from the evidence. However, the court may not instruct the jury on the law to apply to the facts when there is conflicting evidence. This may have significant adverse affects on a jury
Read More
When an employment contract, which is repudiated, is unclear as to whether an employee is to receive commissions, it is too speculative for a jury to compensate that employee for any loss of future unearned commissions. Lost profits must be "proven to a reasonable degree of certainty" in order to be an appropriate measure for damages in a breach of contract. Damages for lost profits are inappropriate when they are contingent on the employer
Read More
The Florida Supreme Court approved the following new language for jury instructions in civil cases.
This instruction is intended for use with instruction 6.1e. g. Other contributing causes of damage: If you find that the defendant[s] caused a bodily injury, and that the injury resulted in [an aggravation of an existing disease or physical defect] [or] [activation of a latent disease or physical defect], you should attempt to determine what portion of (claimant
Read More
Furman
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1333 (Fla. 2nd DCA June 14, 2002)
2002-06-14
ATTORNEY
Requests for the substance of statements taken or given by a party
Read More
Salzgeber v. Kelly
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1329 (Fla. 2nd DCA June 14, 2002)
2002-06-14
ATTORNEY
The filing of a false credit report on a party is considered a category one, or public policy enforcement case, pursuant to section 559.77, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to encourage individual citizens to bring actions that enforce the statutory policy. Therefore, contingency fee arrangements between the party and their attorneys is not the cap for attorney fees awards.
Read More
Furman
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1333 (Fla. 2nd DCA June 14, 2002)
2002-06-14
ATTORNEY
Statements from witnesses who claim to have knowledge of an incident may be withheld by an opposing party on the basis of the work-product privilege.
Read More
A case may be removed into a federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, in order to approve a settlement and apportionment of a minor
Read More
Thompson v. Hodson
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1042a (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2002)
2002-05-17
ATTORNEY
The court found that even if allegedly improper comments made by doctor
Read More
In reversing an order granting summary judgment in favor of American Hotel, the Third District Court of Appeal found that the parties had, in fact, entered into a legally enforceable contract based on the following basic rules of contract interpretation: 1) the contract should be considered as a whole, not in isolated parts; 2) the plain meaning of language used in a contract controls where that language is unambiguous; 3) employment contracts that provide a definite duration are enforceable; and 4) the interpretation of the contract should be consistent with reason, probability and the practical aspect of the transaction. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the contract did not contain an express statement as to duration, the trial court should have determined the intent of the parties by examining the nature and circumstances surrounding the contract and its execution and reasonably construed the agreement as a whole.
Read More
The Second District Court of Appeal granted a writ of certiorari and quashed a discovery order that compelled the petitioner to answer interrogatories propounded by the respondent. The respondent was seeking information on who was providing funds, and in what amounts, to the petitioner
Read More
Parties in administrative hearings must give advance notice when making additions to their exhibit lists to ensure the opposing party has an opportunity to prepare a response or bring forward other information. Notice of an addition the evening before a hearing has been held to be unfairly prejudicial.
Read More
A party adversely affected by the trial court
Read More
The Second District Court of Appeals reaffirmed rule 1.420(e), Fla. R. Civ. P., in requiring a two-step process in deciding whether a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is appropriate. The first step is for the moving party to show that there is no record activity for at least a one year period preceding the motion. The second step, required only if no record activity is determined during the period in question, allows the opposing party to establish a good cause for failing to meet date requirements. In the current case, the court determined that there was no record activity for a period of over one year. Then turning to the second step, the court found that there was good cause for delay by opposing counsel when they previously contacted the moving counsel and explained their troubles locating a witness. The court stressed that this courtesy rewarded opposing counsel but was considered very weak evidence.
Read More
Reasonable and necessary medical treatment costs are covered by an insured
Read More
