Civil Litigation
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Procedure Cases: 24
Plaintiff lost his job when his former employer threatened his new competitor employer with legal action over a non compete agreement. The plaintiff prevailed on his tortious interference claim as he merely interviewed, but did not compete, within the contracted-for 12 month non-compete period. Because the agreement did not bar the plaintiff
Read More
McCown v. Seidell
27 Fla. L. Weekly D2289 (Fla. 5th DCA October 25, 2002)
2002-10-25
PROCEDURE
Read More
Caruso v. Baumle
27 Fla. L. Weekly D2295 (Fla. 5th DCA October 25, 2002)
2002-10-25
PROCEDURE
There is ambiguity in the statutes that needs to be addressed by the legislature regarding set-off from collateral sources. Section 768.76, Florida Statutes, requires the court to reduce the damage award by the collateral source payments, whereas section 627.7372 requires that evidence of collateral source payments be presented to the jury during trial and the jury deduct those payments from its verdict.
Read More
The Florida legislature passed section 768.0710, Florida Statutes (2002), in response to Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., in order to address the burden of proof in slip-and-fall cases, however an issue remains as to whether the case should be applied retrospectively. The general rule is that statutes do not operate retrospectively absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, however the Florida Supreme Court has stated that it will not apply statutes retrospectively, regardless of legislative intent, if the statute impairs vested rights, creates new obligations, or imposes new penalties.
Read More
Bradley v. Brotman
27 Fla. L. Weekly D2078 (Fla. 4th DCA September 27, 2002)
2002-09-27
PROCEDURE
Trial court committed reversible error by not excluding evidence gathered by defendant
Read More
An allegation that an employer has allowed a racially hostile work environment to prosper embodies a single violation of an employee's right to "the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship" and should be reviewed in its entirety if any part of the allegation falls within the statute of limitations period. In this case, the court of appeals remanded the case to the district court to consider whether the claims in their entirety present a genuine issue as to any material fact, and to allow the employer to plead laches as a defense, should it contend that the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in filing suit and that the delay prejudiced the employer.
Read More
Supervisors are immune from suit unless it can be shown that the supervisor
Read More
In order to overcome the privacy rights of non-party patients in a mental health facility, a party must show a compelling need for the discovery that outweighs the constitutional privacy rights of the non-party psychiatric patients. As public policy dictates upholding the patient/psychotherapist privilege in order to encourage people to seek treatment without fear of public exposure, identification of alleged assailants by another patient is not considered a
Read More
An anti-stacking provision in an insurance policy does not constitute a coverage defense under
Read More
The Third District Court of Appeal found that the trial court appropriately directed a verdict in favor of the defendant/landlord where the evidence showed that he was not in possession of the property at the time of the plaintiff
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
The Fifth District Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in refusing to correct the spelling of defendant's name after a default judgment was entered.
Read More
In a dismissal action for failure to prosecute, a court ordered status conference does not constitute record activity under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e). Rule 1.420(e) is intended to ensure that actions filed in Florida's courts are diligently prosecuted by the parties and provides for dismissal without prejudice of actions wherein no record activity has taken place for a year. Record activity must constitute an affirmative act calculated to hasten the suit to judgment.
Read More
The Home Venue Privilege of a state agency provides that actions against the agency are to be brought in the county where that agency maintains its principle headquarters, however, the privilege is not absolute. Where a governmental entity is sued as a joint tortfeasor, strict adherence to the privilege could lead to duplicated litigation. In this case, the court held that the home venue privilege must give way because the Department of Insurance was named as an impleader in supplementary proceedings in an action that had already begun in a different venue. The court found that transfer of venue would result in new and additional litigation in a different court and would not further policy considerations of the home venue privilege.
Read More
A plaintiff in a personal injury case may not recover prejudgment post-verdict interest. Court stated its holding was bolstered by the plain language of Fla. Stat.
Read More
O
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1310 (Fla. 3d DCA June 14, 2002)
2002-06-14
PROCEDURE
The
Read More
Trial court correctly denied motion for new trial where the defendant failed to dispute any of plaintiff
Read More
Since the insured would be unable to obtain admission to a hospital for expensive surgical procedures without prior authorization from his or her insurance company, an insurer has the obligation to preauthorize surgery in a situation in which the injury is within the coverage of the medical payments portion of the insurance policy.
Read More
Thompson v. Hodson
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1042a (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2002)
2002-05-17
PROCEDURE
The court found that even if allegedly improper comments made by doctor
Read More
In fraud cases, summary judgment is available only in extraordinary circumstances. The determination that a fraudulent transfer has occurred under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act includes numerous factors, leaving much room for remaining issues of material fact, which preclude summary judgment.
Read More
An insurer
Read More
The court found that a Motion for Mistrial filed the day after the objectional testimony, but before all of the evidence was presented and the jury instructed, was not timely so as to preserve issues for review.
At the trial that took place in December of 2000, plaintiffs
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
Vencor Hospitals filed a motion for reconsideration following the grant of summary judgment in favor of Standard Life and Accident Insurance Company. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the District Court; however, neither party received notice of the order. After discovering the denial of its motion for reconsidering almost a year later, Vencor Hospitals sought relief from judgement. The District Court determined the relief was precluded. Having failed to receive actual notice of the District Curt
Read More
