Civil Litigation
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Evidence Cases: 28
The district court held that three expert witnesses’ opinion were not admissible because the process they used was not sufficient under the Daubert test. The first expert’s testimony showed that he relied primarily on tests conducted by another doctor and on that doctor’s opinions in coming to his own conclusions. As for the other two expert’s, many of their conclusions were found to be little more than mere speculation. Based on this, the district court excluded their testimony.
Read More
A cruise line passenger brought suit against the cruise line alleging that improper treatment of a staph infection while onboard the ship led to the onset of an incurable kidney disease. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defense on the grounds that the plaintiff’s medical expert’s testimony regarding causation was overly novel and investigational. The district court reversed summary judgment, finding that the expert’s methods were generally accepted within the scientific community.
Read More
Counsel for a hotel violated the court's order when, during closing argument, he stated that the accident diagram shown to the jury had come from police report related to the incident being litigated. The adverse parties argued that both their motion for directed verdict and motion for new trial should have been granted as a result of the improper reference. The appellate court disagreed. The trial court found that counsel's improper reference to the police diagram as coming from the accident report was inadvertent and unintentional and also found that the single reference during closing argument did not rise to the level of affecting the outcome of the case. As a result, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. As to the cross-appeal, the trial court had imposed the sanction for the hotel's violation of its order. The hotel failed to preserve the issue so the sanction was affirmed.
Read More
The proper test for venue in a case of a foreign corporation is whether that corporation has
Read More
Coverage opinions of insurance companies are non-discoverable attorney work-product and parties should not be ordered to provide copies of court cases that opposing counsel could access through the court system.
Read More
Documents were deemed discoverable even though the documents were from an unrelated case, were under seal and subject to a confidentiality agreement. The confidentiality agreement provided the documents could be unsealed if so ordered by any court and the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the Florida court order was sufficient to compel production of the California documents.
Read More
The court found the state law claim and request for equitable distribution was completely preempted by ERISA, which superceded state laws when the claim related to an employee benefit plan.
Read More
Local rules have the force of law. Local Rule 56.1(A) was designed to facilitate the resolution of summary judgment motions by requiring each party to direct the courts attention to the material facts at issue. If a party submits evidence in support of a motion for summary judgment, a court has the discretion to strike portions not conforming with local and federal rules. The court also embraced the standards for a motion to strike laid out in Ward v. State of Fla., Dept. of Juvenile Justice, specifically that evidence considered on a motion for summary judgment does not have to be in admissible form at that time, including hearsay, but the party must show that it will be reduced to admissible form at trial.
Read More
State v. Sercey
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1415 (Fla. 1st. DCA June 28, 2002)
2002-06-28
EVIDENCE
Evidence of a defendant
Read More
Boswell v. Russell
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1434 (Fla. 5th DCA June 28, 2002)
2002-06-28
EVIDENCE
The owner of livestock has a duty to make certain that livestock is not permitted to run at large or stray upon public roads. This duty is not subject to strict liability, but rather must be based on a showing of negligence. However, just because livestock is on a public road does not show that the owner intentionally, willfully, carelessly, or even negligently caused the livestock to be there. Furthermore, neither the liability nor knowledge of one spouse can be generally imputed by another.
Read More
A plaintiff was successful in filing a defamation claim against a former employer when he was fired for dishonesty. The plaintiff was injured in a non-work related accident and took time off. He received disability pay by the defendant while being injured but returned to work for a second job because it was considered less strenuous. The court found that termination and the subsequent publicity of the reason for termination by the defendant justified the jury
Read More
OSHRC
Read More
One who mistakenly receives additional compensation, must return it to the rightful owner, unless there is a legal or equitable claim to the money. In order to make an equitable estoppel claim three elements must be met: 1) the estopped party must have made a prior representation about material facts that is contrary to a later asserted position; 2) the party claiming estoppel must rely on that representation; and 3) the party claiming estoppel must have changed their position to their own detriment as a result of that representation. The court found that having spent the additional compensation is not a sufficient showing of detriment, and thus will still require reimbursement.
Read More
Section 56.29, Florida Statutes (1999), allow creditors, upon the showing of fraudulent activities by the debtor, to recover from third parties to the extent that they have property that belongs to the debtor. Furthermore, under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, section 726.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes, a debtor
Read More
The Fifth District Court of Appeals found that in a chain of custody of an automobile, indemnity will flow among the vicariously liable tortfeasors so that liability will rest with the tortfeasor who entrusted a negligent driver of the particular automobile in question. Furthermore, even if the entrustment was not negligent, liability will still fall onto the entrusting tortfeasor.
Read More
The court found that a sudden stop by a lead vehicle is insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence where the sudden stop is at a place where a sudden stop can reasonably be expected. The court found that the facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the appellee, did not show that the appellee rebutted the presumption of negligence.
Read More
The defendants, Royal and the Watson Clinic, brought a common law writ of certiorari to quash a pretrial order that provided that no party could talk to the deponent, Dr. G. Dougles Letson, until after he was sworn to testify for trial, if there was one. The trial court entered the order based upon a finding that the communications were prohibited by the physician-patient privilege established by section 455.667.
The appellate court concluded that the statutory physician-patient privilege did not attach to prevent communications between the health care providers involved as defendants in the lawsuit and Dr. Letson, because all three were involved in the treatment of the patient giving rise to the potential malpractice claim. The filing of the lawsuit could not create a privilege where none had previously existed. Because the trial court
Read More
The court found that the 1999 amendment to section 768.81, Florida Statutes, limiting joint and several liability, did not apply retroactively to a cause of action which accrued prior to the effective date of the amendment. Furthermore, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant additur where the jury
Read More
The supreme court found that an attorney was guilty of violating the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar where he had an ex parte communication with a judge which led to a judge
Read More
Cuillo appealed from a final summary judgment entered against him. McCoy cross-appealed the award of prejudgment interest. Cuillo argued that the five-year statute of limitations set forth in section 95.11(2)(b) barred the enforcement of the debt because the default occurred more than five years before the suit was filed.
The court held that by application of section 95.01(1)(f), the partial payments made tolled the statute of limitations as a matter of law. Thus, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment. The court affirmed the finding that prejudgment interest should run from the notice of default to Cuillo.
Read More
The court reviewed the denial of a motion taxing appellate costs. The trial court denied the motion based upon the court
Read More
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that trial courts have the inherent authority to assess attorney fees as a sanction for an attorney
Read More
The Fourth District Court of Appeal distinguished Federal Rule of Evidence 609(2)(b), which provided a bright-line bar for impeachment by use of prior convictions if occurring more than ten years ago, from section 90.610 of the Florida Statutes, which expressly avoids placing an "arbitrary number of years" in addressing remoteness. Thus, Florida courts are to make case-by-case determinations as to whether past convictions have a bearing on witnesses
Read More
The sufficiency and reasonableness of a manufacturer
Read More
Where plaintiffs sued two physicians and the allegations themselves reveal an "initial/subsequent tortfeasor" scenario, then plaintiffs
Read More
The Fifth District Court of Appeal found that, in a chain of custody of an automobile, indemnity will flow among the vicariously liable tortfeasors so that liability will rest with the tortfeasor who entrusted the negligent driver. Furthermore, even if the entrustment was not negligent, liability will still fall onto the entrusting tortfeasor.
Read More
In the consolidated appeal, Stewart & Stevensons Services appealed two final judgements entered by the trial court in favor of Westchester Fire Insurance Company. The first judgement was entered following a jury verdict in favor of Westchester on S&S
Read More
In order for a city to maintain patent rights to an invention, the city is required to prove by an "unequivocal inference" that the inventor was given the specific task of producing the item invented.
Read More
