expectations
©
appellate
raising
Follow Us
National Federal & Florida representation. Global clientele.
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Your contact with this firm reflects your understanding and agreement with these statements.
Recommendations or testimonials are not necessarily representative of results obtained, or all clients’ experiences with the lawyer. Facts and circumstances may differ from the matter(s) in which the results or recommendations are provided. Decisions about any lawyer are important and should not be based solely upon what is stated in a social networking site, website or blog. Your contact with this firm reflects your understanding and agreement with these statements.
© 2007-12 Easley Appellate Practice, P.L.L.C. (Since 1994) All rights reserved.
4000 Ponce de León Blvd., Suite 470, Miami, Florida 33146
(800) 216-6185 (305) 444-1599 [email protected]
Hesterly v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. ,(S.D.Fla.) Maritime Law - Cruise ship owner was not required to employ Florida doctors. Requiring the owner of a cruise ship, which ship provided doctors for the treatment of passengers, to employ doctors licensed in Florida would contradict the uniformity of federal maritime law. Such a requirement would open the door to requiring the same ship to carry physicians licensed in any other state which the vessel might call on during a voyage.
Oak Ford Owners Ass'n v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. ,(M.D.Fla.) Insurance - Damage to real property occurred while dredging project was underway within exclusion for damage during operations. Under Florida law, an exclusion from a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy for property damage arising from and during the performance of operations applied to damage to real property caused by dredging the creek and depositing the fill on its banks, as the damage occurred while the dredging project was underway. The court rejected the argument that the negative environmental impact occurred after the work was complete. The removing of fill was property damage, and the damage to vegetation took place when the fill was removed from the creek.
Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Frankel Enterprises, Inc. ,(S.D.Fla.) Insurance - Insurer's defense of insured was not a sham entitling insured to enter into unauthorized settlement agreement. Under Florida law, an insurer's letter to an additional insured under a commercial general liability insurance policy did not constitute a denial of coverage, which would render the insurer's continued defense of the insured a sham entitling the insured to enter into an unauthorized settlement agreement in the claimants' underlying action against the insured for loss of consortium and personal and property damages. The insurer did not deny coverage as to certain claims, but only reserved its right to deny coverage if it found the claims were not covered.
HSI IP, Inc. v. Champion Window Mfg. and Supply Co., Inc. ,(M.D.Fla.) Trademarks - Allegations supported specific jurisdiction. The plaintiff supplier of window blinds, by alleging that the defendant non- resident manufacturer of doors and windows committed tortious acts within Florida, sufficiently alleged a basis, under Florida's long-arm statute, for specific jurisdiction over the defendant, in an action asserting trademark infringement under federal and Florida law and asserting claims under Florida law for unfair competition, injury to business reputation, and dilution. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, with full knowledge of the plaintiff's prior rights to marks, pursued action likely to suggest false sponsorship, license, or association between the parties' marks, and that the defendant sent letters to the plaintiff threatening to file infringement, dilution, and unfair competition proceedings against the plaintiff and threatening to oppose the plaintiff's application for a certain design mark unless the plaintiff ceased all use of a disputed mark.
Pigott v. Sanibel Development, LLC ,(S.D.Ala.) Real Property - Purchasers' action against vendor under Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA) did not warrant abstention. Purchasers' consolidated action, under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA), asserting that the vendor failed to comply with reporting requirements and fraudulently misrepresented that condominiums were pre-development units, did not warrant Colorado River abstention. Although the vendor had filed a declaratory judgment action in state court on the same matter 10 days prior to the purchasers' suit, there were no facts presenting exceptional circumstances to justify abstention.
Stoddard v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners ,(N.D.Fla.) Legal Services - Review of bar applicant's character and fitness did not violate Americans with Disabilities Act. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners' review of a bar applicant's mental health and history of financial irresponsibility or unprofessional conduct in connection with its review of the applicant's character and fitness did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The applicant was hospitalized three times for acute psychosis, had a 25-plus-year history of physical and mental illness, suffered one complete financial collapse and went through a separate bankruptcy proceeding almost 20 years later, had sporadic employment over a long period, and, after submitting his application to the bar, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which was controlled only with medication.
Smith v. Quintiles Transnational Corp. ,(M.D.Fla.) Labor and Employment - Employer did not retaliate against employee for filing complaint of sexual harassment under Title VII. An employer's adverse actions of placing the employee on a performance improvement plan (PIP) and her later termination were not caused by the employee's complaint of sexual harassment, as required for her Title VII retaliation claim. The employer had already made the decision to place the employee on a PIP before she made her complaint, so the employer was not aware of her protected activity. The six-month lapse between her complaint and her termination could not by itself establish retaliation. Moreover, the employee had only bare suppositions and unsupported allegations as circumstantial evidence for causation.
Marco Island Cable, Inc. v. Comcast Cablevision of the South, Inc. ,(M.D.Fla.) Energy and Utilities - Cable company did not have to let competitor use its wiring in condominium building. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) provision prohibiting condominium associations from assessing cable television service providers charges beyond standard installation and subscription fees did not require an incumbent cable television service provider to make wiring it installed and owned available to a competitor. Thus, contracts between the provider and condominium communities allowing it to retain ownership of the wiring it installed did not violate the FDUTPA.
Kazanjian v. School Bd. of Palm Beach County ,(Fla.App. 4 Dist.) Education - School board owed no duty to lessen the risk of injuries by preventing high school students from leaving campus without authorization. Under Florida law, in the context of a negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by a student in a car crash that occurred after the student had left the school's campus without authorization, the school board owed no duty to lessen the risk of such injuries by preventing high school students from leaving campus without authorization. Off-campus dangers confronting high school students were risks that should be confronted by students and their parents. <p>This decision may not yet be released for publication.
Stuart Weitzman, LLC v. MicroComputer Resources, Inc.,(S.D.Fla.) Copyrights - Factors supported finding that fashion designer was owner of copy of software. A fashion designer's payment of a substantial sum, in excess of $1 million, to a software consultant for the development of software for the fashion designer's sole benefit, and the customization of the software to serve the fashion designer, were factors weighing in favor of finding that the fashion designer was the owner of a copy of the software for order management and fulfillment, for purposes of an owner's right under the Copyright Act to copy or modify software for limited purposes without incurring liability for infringement. It was irrelevant whether the fashion designer paid the consultant on an hourly basis to develop the software, as opposed to paying a lump sum for a copy of the software.
Jurisdiction -- Supreme Court lacks discretionary jurisdiction based on certification of a question of great public importance because only 6 of 12 judges that participated in en banc decision of district court of appeal concurred in certification and thus, there was not clear majority on decision to certify -- Certification of question is separate from judgment of court and its reasoning for judgment as expressed in its opinion -- By “concurring in the judgment” and failing to indicate agreement with decisions to certify, a judge's vote cannot be counted as agreeing with certification -- Even assuming court had jurisdiction based on either a certification of question of great public importance or express and direct conflict under article V, section 3(b)(3), court would decline to exercise its jurisdiction -- As alternative basis for discharging jurisdiction, review in this case is premature
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly S580a
Insurance -- Medical malpractice -- Action by physician against insurer, alleging that defendant failed to exercise good faith in conducting presuit investigation and settling claim against physician -- Trial court properly dismissed claim, finding that neither section 766.106 nor section 627.4147, upon which physician relied in making his claim, created a private cause of action against insurer -- Section 627.4147(a) requires malpractice insurance policies to grant insurer the sole authority to settle a claim where settlement is within policy limits, but requires that such settlement be made in the best interest of the insured -- Requiring that any settlement be in best interest of insured means the interest of insured's rights under policy, not some collateral effect unconnected with claim
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2326a
Estates -- Surviving spouse -- Elective share -- Florida's elective share statutes are constitutional -- Statutes serve legitimate legislative purpose and are rationally related to that purpose, in that they seek to provide surviving spouse who has not waived such protections a minority share in the assets of the decedent in the event the spouse did not receive as much through testamentary dispositions -- Statutes do not violate federal Due Process Clause and do not impair any contractual rights in this case -- Although decedent had amended substantive trust provisions to remove spouse as beneficiary and change distribution of trust assets and income, these changes were made after the effective date of certain amendments to elective share statutes at a time when decedent should have been aware or advised of the changes in the law and the implications the amendments would have on his attempts to change the terms of his trust -- Discussion of elective share statutes in relation to expressed constitutional right provided by article I, section 2, Florida Constitution, to “acquire, possess and protect property”
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2307a
Dissolution of marriage -- Equitable distribution -- Marital assets -- Trial court abused its discretion by listing and valuing assets and liabilities in final judgment but failing to distribute them -- Stock appreciation rights from husband's employer should have been designated as a marital asset where rights were fully vested before dissolution petition was filed, although value of SARs could not be determined at time of trial -- Although husband argued that appreciation was based on future performance, to extent that any appreciation is for performance before date of dissolution petition, that amount should be valued as marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution -- On remand, trial court shall impose constructive trust for wife's benefit on one-half of SARs until marital value can be determined -- Overdraft protection account -- Although trial court placed value on balance owing on overdraft protection account and indicated that this amount would be retroactive alimony, trial court did not order husband to pay this liability and trial court's intention is unclear -- Trial court to reconsider issue on remand and make sufficient findings to allow meaningful review -- Bonus -- No abuse of discretion in failing to include husband's employment bonus as income in determining husband's ability to pay alimony where husband's testimony supported conclusion that bonus was not regular and continuing -- However, trial court should include portion of bonus in equitable distribution -- Alimony -- Imputed income -- Amount of income imputed to wife was not supported by competent, substantial evidence -- On remand, trial court should award alimony to meet wife's total present need and consider rehabilitative or bridge-the-gap alimony, depending upon circumstances that exist upon remand -- Whether tax consequences to wife were properly considered by trial court in arriving at figure used for wife's per-month need is unclear -- Alimony determination remanded for trial court to clarify finding on wife's needs, including tax consequences -- Trial court shall reconsider retroactive alimony once it clarifies wife's net need and must make adequate findings that allow meaningful appellate review -- No abuse of discretion in excluding from husband's income money from equipment sales where the sales were not regular and continuing -- Error to fail to include 20% of husband's employer-provided monthly car allowance where husband admitted that he used the vehicle for personal use 20% of the time -- Attorney's fees -- Trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on husband's motion for rehearing of attorney's fees order because appeal of that order was pending
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2310a
Dissolution of marriage -- Child custody -- Modification -- Error to modify joint rotating custody to make former wife primary residential custodian and to permit her to relocate to foreign state with children -- Court made decision to change custody based solely on former wife's decision to relocate, and decision to relocate, without more, cannot be deemed a substantial change of circumstances that justifies custody modification
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2325c
Contracts -- Yacht brokers -- Commission on sale of vessel -- Judgment for yacht broker for commission on sale of vessel reversed where there was no evidence that efforts of broker or anyone acting on its behalf were a procuring cause of the sale
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2322a
Contracts -- Real property sale -- Action by purchaser of property against seller of property, lessee of property who had right of first refusal and option to purchase property, and party who agreed to finance lessee's exercise of its purchase option -- There is no merit to plaintiff's claim that trial court erred in entering summary judgment while discovery was ongoing -- Because plaintiff had adequate opportunity to engage in discovery and any further discovery was not likely to present any material facts relevant to court's disposition of issues, summary judgment was not premature -- Court properly granted summary judgment for lessee on counterclaim for specific performance of option to purchase and for lessee and party who agreed to finance exercise of purchase option on plaintiff's claims of tortious interference -- Court properly found, based on unambiguous language of lease, that right of first refusal and option to purchase were separate and legally distinct rights, such that failure to exercise right of first refusal did not extinguish option to purchase -- There is no merit to claim that lessee's exercise of its purchase option was invalid because lessee was in default of the lease at the time it attempted to exercise its purchase option -- Lessee was not in default of lease because lessor never declared a default -- Lessee's lawful exercise of its purchase option could not constitute interference with plaintiff's contract to purchase property as matter of law -- Plaintiff had no cause of action for tortious interference against party who financed lessee's exercise of purchase option because that party had a valid business interest -- Court properly entered summary judgment for seller on plaintiff's claim for indemnification -- Indemnification agreement covered only claims arising from obligations, duties and liabilities of seller, and claims for which plaintiff seeks indemnification arose from plaintiff's own obligations
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2314a
Dissolution of marriage -- Alimony -- Trial court erroneously awarded lump-sum alimony to wife on theory that husband's conversion of his pension from a retirement plan to a disability retirement plan was a “unique and special circumstance” justifying lump-sum alimony -- Portion of husband's pension accumulated during marriage was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution to extent it did not represent actual compensation for disability -- No abuse of discretion in denying husband's motions for rehearing and to file supplemental pleading, which were based on antenuptial agreement that husband knew existed but decided not to rely on during litigation -- Finding of document later is insufficient to serve as an event or occurrence upon which husband may supplement his pleadings
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2328a
Torts -- Product liability -- Ladder -- Design defect -- Evidence -- Trial court did not err by granting motions in limine excluding testimony of expert witnesses intended to prove presence of a malfunction and product defect causing plaintiff's fall from a ladder -- No merit to argument that motions in limine were untimely filed on first date of trial in violation of trial court's order setting trial and parties' pretrial stipulation -- Record establishes that untimeliness resulted from actions of plaintiff's counsel in repeatedly failing to make expert witnesses available for depositions -- No merit to argument that expert witnesses were entitled to testify regarding Type II racking or torsional instability to establish the Cassisi inference of product defectiveness -- Plaintiff never argued to trial court that he was seeking to establish a Cassisi inference while the motions in limine regarding the expert witnesses were being considered and at time plaintiff elected to take directed verdict; rather, he improperly raised the argument for first time on appeal -- Even if trial court had been aware that plaintiff was seeking a Cassisi inference, one would not have been available under circumstances of case where plaintiff failed to testify and provide evidence that ladder was being used normally and that ladder had malfunction, and where plaintiff attempted to improperly employ experts to demonstrate the very existence of a malfunction, in addition to attempting to establish nature of defect -- No error in excluding expert testimony regarding an alternative ladder design that would minimize risk of Type II racking or torsional instability -- Plaintiff is unable to establish error regarding exclusion of expert testimony of Type II racking or torsional instability as cause of his accident because of his failure to raise his Cassisi argument below, which was only argument for seeking admission of expert testimony on appeal
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2298b
Torts -- Breach of fiduciary duty -- Accounting -- Limitation of actions -- Delayed discovery doctrine -- No error in finding that claims for breach of fiduciary duty and accounting were time-barred where claims were based on defendant's failure to purchase certain stock with funds provided by plaintiff for that purpose, and plaintiff became aware at least six years before suit was filed that defendant had released money to owner of company issuing stock, but that shares of stock had not been delivered to plaintiff -- Delayed discovery doctrine does not apply to cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty -- Laches -- Although claim for accounting is equitable action, it concerns the same subject matter as plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and statute provides that “laches shall bar any action unless it is commenced within the time period provided for legal actions concerning the same subject matter regardless of lack of knowledge by the person sought to be held liable that the person alleging liability would assert his or her rights and whether the person sought to be held liable is injured or prejudiced by the delay”
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2331c
Insurance -- Automobile -- Exclusions -- Intentional acts -- Appeal by husband and wife co-insureds from final declaratory judgment in favor of insurer holding that insureds' claims arising from incident in which wife crashed husband's car into wall of their family-operated car wash were excluded from coverage under automobile policy because their loss was result of an intentional act of wife -- Insured husband who filed a claim under collision provision for damage to his car is not excluded from coverage under provision excluding from coverage “any insured who” intentionally causes bodily injury or property damage, because policy language unambiguously restricts the exclusion to the “guilty” insured -- Clause excludes a particular insured, not a particular loss, and policy identifies the excluded insured as the insured “who intentionally causes” a loss -- Policy language plainly does not take away coverage of an innocent co-insured who did not intentionally cause property damage -- Phrase “any insured” does not always equate to joint coverage regardless of context in which it is used
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2353a
Consumer law -- Debt collection -- Deceptive and unfair trade practices -- Class actions -- Action by property owners who defaulted on their mortgages alleging defendants violated state statutes by including in mortgage reinstatement letters sent to defaulting property owners a claim for title search and examination and various other charges which exceeded the actual costs incurred -- Trial court erred in restricting class to those persons whose default or failure to timely pay their mortgage obligations did not ultimately result in foreclosure judgment or sale -- Statutory causes of action were triggered by transmission of reinstatement letter seeking illegitimate costs, not by the ultimate outcome of any foreclosure proceedings -- Moreover, remedy is limited to damages set by statute, and case focuses on actions by defendants, not on individual differences between prospective class members
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2338a
Guardianship -- Guardian -- Appointment of nonrelative as guardian of property and person of ward, as recommended by general magistrate, was appropriate in this case, even though there was seemingly at least one family member willing to serve as guardian -- No error in rejecting exceptions to magistrate's report and recommendation -- No abuse of discretion in failing to reopen matter to consider petition for guardianship filed 55 days after final hearing to determine ward's incapacity and guardianship and 10 days after magistrate issued his report and recommendation
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2350a
Wrongful death -- Product liability -- Tobacco -- Discovery -- Marital privilege -- Work product -- Plaintiff did not make blanket waiver of marital privilege by testifying without objection that he and his deceased wife discussed filing lawsuit before she passed away, that it was wife's idea to file lawsuit, and that wife said she would like the two of them to file the action -- Testimony waived privilege only with regard to communications with wife regarding decision to file lawsuit -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by denying plaintiff's objection to defendant's question as to whether his wife had said anything else to him about the lawsuit before she died -- Where plaintiff responded to defendant's request for production of documents supporting specific allegations of complaint by producing four DVD's containing thousands of documents without specifying which documents supported which allegations, it was improper to direct plaintiff to identify the documents responsive to each specific discovery request -- Moreover, directive was overbroad because it was not limited to documents that plaintiff had determined he would use at trial
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2346a
Public officials -- Ethics violations -- False accusations -- Attorney's fees and costs -- Appeal by public official from final order denying costs and attorney's fees -- Appeals -- Standard of review -- Ethics Commission's final order is reviewable by de novo standard, as expressed in section 120.68(7)(d), given nature of adjudication in this case and subject matter of statute -- Deference to Commission is not required because order is based on conclusion of law that did not require any particular expertise -- Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes (2004) does not require a public official who was falsely accused of an ethics violation to prove that the accusation was made with “actual malice” -- In this case, county property appraiser was entitled to recover costs and attorney's fees incurred in defense of ethics violation complaint because evidence supports elements stated in statute -- Based on text of statute, elements of a claim by public official for costs and attorney's fees are that complaint was made with a malicious intent to injure the official's reputation, person filing the complaint knew that statements made about the official were false or made the statements about the official with reckless disregard for the truth, and statements were material -- Section 112.317(8) does not incorporate the actual malice standard of Sullivan into statutory requirements for recovery of costs and attorney's fees by public official
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2342h
Contracts -- Venue -- Forum selection clause -- Mandatory/permissive clause -- Forum selection clause which stated that any proceeding relating to a controversy concerning the agreement “shall be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota” was mandatory -- Additional statement that parties submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of Minnesota served to confirm mandatory nature of provision -- Discussion of words “shall” and “submit”
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2336a
Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Attorney's fees -- Proposal for settlement -- Proposal for settlement which limited recovery against defendant to claims arising in relation to case, and did not limit plaintiffs' ability to raise and recover as against any third party, was not ambiguous -- Trial court properly awarded attorney's fees in favor of defendant hospital pursuant to proposal for settlement
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2374a
Municipal corporations -- Firefighters -- Pension funds -- Termination of defined pension plan established by municipal ordinance following termination of firefighters pursuant to agreement with county and rehiring by county, at which time firefighters became mandatory members of Florida Retirement System -- Town's rights and responsibilities -- Trial court erred when it found, as matter of law, that town had no obligation to fund plan's actuarial shortfall present at time town's actions resulted in termination of the plan -- Town's argument that it had no obligation to fund actuarial deficiency inasmuch as board of trustees elected to distribute plan funds in a way that was more costly than other available alternatives does not have a legal basis because board had sole authority to choose the method of distribution of plan assets at termination -- Board appropriately followed statutory procedure for distributing plan's assets available for distribution at time of termination, and statute clearly dictated that benefits accrued to date of termination were “nonforfeitable” -- Further, pursuant to section 112.0515, inasmuch as town's decision to enter into the agreement resulted in termination of the plan, there could be no impairment or reduction in benefits or other pension rights accruing to any firefighter plan member
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2366a
Civil procedure -- Discovery -- Attorney-client privilege -- Crime-fraud exception -- Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law in determining that plaintiff presented prima facie case that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied, sufficient to justify in camera inspection -- Error to order that any documents on privilege log which discuss the perpetuation of a crime or fraud by misleading the court and others would be released immediately to plaintiff, without making provision for any further hearing or order -- Procedure was defective in that it did not allow defendant the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the trial court's conclusion as to any particular document selected by trial court for release -- Moreover, procedure provided for immediate turning over of documents by judge to plaintiff, without further opportunity for appellate review of judge's decision following in camera inspection
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2365a
Dissolution of marriage -- Child custody -- Modification -- Trial court did not err in modifying provision in parties' marital settlement agreement providing for shared parental responsibility for their children's education and giving the mother ultimate responsibility to make decisions regarding children's education -- Change in circumstances -- Competent, substantial evidence supported trial court's findings that impasse on issue of child's school constituted a substantial change in circumstances which was unanticipated at time of agreement, since agreement provided no mechanism to resolve an impasse on such a matter vital to the child and that designating the mother as final decision-maker was in best interest of child -- Where parties cannot and will not come to agreement, trial court can determine that such an impasse constitutes a substantial change in circumstance, requiring modification of final judgment in best interest of children -- Father was not denied his fundamental right to parent his child where case involves competing rights of divorced parents to their child -- Attorney's fees -- Trial court directed to reduce by sixty number of hours to wife's attorney for trial services -- Number of hours expended was excessive -- Remaining issues with respect to attorney's fees affirmed
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2360c
Contracts -- Venue -- Forum selection clause -- Forum selection clause in loan application was a mandatory clause and required that dispute be litigated in Kansas -- Fact that clause contained the word “consent” did not render it permissive where clause included words of exclusivity specifying the exclusive jurisdiction of specified courts in Kansas for the “judicial resolution of any disputes arising under, or in any way related to, the Application” -- Fact that subsequently executed interest rate lock agreement contained a conflicting forum selection clause did not create an ambiguity which rendered the forum selection clause in the loan application permissive, because the interest rate lock agreement provided that it could not modify provisions of the loan application -- Trial court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2387a
Torts -- School boards -- Releases -- Action alleging that defendant school board's negligence resulted in injuries student received during cheerleading practice in gymnasium of high school -- Trial court properly entered summary judgment for school board on ground that action was barred by release signed by student and her parent/guardian -- Release which clearly and unambiguously indicated intent to release school board from liability for “any injury or claim resulting from athletic participation,” was sufficient to insulate school board from liability for negligence claim -- Where parent/guardian thought participation in cheerleading was beneficial for child, parent/guardian could bind child to waiver of liability by signing release
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2386a
Mandamus -- Municipal corporations -- Elections -- Initiative petition -- Laches -- Trial court erred in ruling that laches barred alternative writ of mandamus which was sought to compel city to place on ballot the petition committee's proposed initiative ordinances which would affect relocation of city hall and library and development of city center area which had been subject of a series of resolutions passed by the city -- It is undisputed that petitioners followed procedures authorized by city charter for requiring city commission to either adopt their proposed ordinances or submit them to electorate in referendum election, and neither delay in seeking referendum nor possible consequences of an election on the referendum can justify court's failure to enforce the referendum
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2379a
Wrongful death -- Pharmacy's liability for death resulting from decedent's ingestion of Oxycontin which he received from fraternity brother who, in turn, had received drug from his roommate, a pharmacy technician who had stolen it from defendant, who was his employer -- No error in granting pharmacy's motion for summary judgment which was based on defendant's argument that decedent's criminal conduct in ingesting the drug barred recovery -- Although plaintiff emphasized that there was no evidence showing that decedent knew nature of drug he ingested, knowledge of illicit nature of a controlled substance can be presumed from actual possession of the substance
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2383a
Torts -- Automobile accident -- Vicarious liability of rental car company for negligence of renter of vehicle -- Trial court properly found that federal Graves Amendment supersedes and abolishes all state vicarious liability laws as they apply to lessors of motor vehicles for causes of action that arose after effective date of federal statute -- Trial court properly found that defendant rental car company was liable only up to limits of statutory self-insurance financial responsibility minimums set forth in subsection 324.021(7), or $10,000
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2389a
