Vassar B. Carlton

The case concerned whether a defendant's oral and written statements, obtained during pre-Miranda interrogation without a specific warning about the right to counsel during questioning, were admissible in a first-degree murder trial held after Miranda. The Florida Supreme Court held that the statements were properly admitted at trial, as the warnings given substantially complied with Miranda requirements, the statements were voluntary, and Michigan v. Tucker supported their use despite the incomplete advice. The court also ruled that evidence of a prior homosexual act was admissible as relevant to the state's theory of motive and premeditation. It quashed the district court's reversal and ordered reinstatement of the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a class action lawsuit by residents of Broward County, Florida, who claimed that state statutes governing the distribution of primary road funds violated the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Florida constitutions by providing their county with a disproportionately small share of funds relative to its population and gasoline consumption. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal. The court reasoned that the primary road system is intended as a statewide network benefiting all residents equally, rather than creating separate county systems, and that there is no constitutional right to proportional per-county expenditures of such funds, leaving allocation decisions to legislative discretion.

civil rights

The case involved a petition for certiorari review of a first-degree murder conviction, where the defendant challenged the trial court's denial of motions to dismiss an indictment signed by an assistant state attorney, for a continuance, and to exclude testimony from a witness granted immunity whose identity was disclosed late. The Florida Supreme Court determined it lacked jurisdiction under the state constitution because the facts did not create a direct conflict with its prior decision in Richardson v. State, which concerned a different discovery rule, and because any ruling would affect only a narrow subclass of assistant state attorneys rather than a broader class of constitutional or state officers. The court therefore discharged the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, without addressing the merits of the discovery or indictment issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Latimore filing a petition for certiorari review by the Florida Supreme Court of a lower court decision in a matter against the State of Florida. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. Five justices concurred in the denial, while two justices dissented.

criminal lawprocedure

In Adams v. Whitfield, the petitioner secured a jury verdict in a malicious prosecution action that included both compensatory and punitive damages, but the trial court vacated the punitive award due to insufficient evidence of actual malice and the district court affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, ruling that only legal malice—not actual malice—is required to support punitive damages in malicious prosecution cases, and that such malice may be inferred from a lack of probable cause or from gross negligence showing wanton disregard for others' rights. The Court found the record evidence adequate to sustain the jury's punitive damages determination and remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the full verdict.

torts & liability

In this case, a father sued an employer on behalf of his 14-year-old son after the boy was injured at work when equipment severed part of his finger during a one-day job. The employer had not obtained the special employment certificate required by Fla. Stat. § 450.111(2) for minors, and the plaintiffs argued this statutory violation amounted to negligence per se. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the district court affirmed, distinguishing earlier precedent like Tampa Shipbuilding. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court's decision, ruling that child labor laws are designed to protect a vulnerable class and that their violation establishes negligence per se, even with added criminal sanctions, without requiring proof of causation between the violation and the injury.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved George Curtis seeking review by the Florida Supreme Court of a lower court decision in a matter brought against the State of Florida. The court denied the petition for certiorari, allowing the prior ruling in 281 So.2d 514 to stand without further review by the high court. Four justices concurred in the denial while one justice dissented, with the order issued on January 24, 1974, and rehearing later denied.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the Florida Attorney General sought a writ of prohibition to bar the District Court of Appeal from hearing an appeal by defendant Richard Micale, who had pleaded guilty after the trial court rejected his nolo contendere plea conditioned on preserving a suppression issue. The State argued that Micale's post-plea motion for new trial was not a "proper" motion under the appellate rules because no trial had occurred, so it did not toll the 30-day appeal period from rendition of judgment, making the notice of appeal untimely. The Supreme Court of Florida discharged the writ and allowed the appeal to proceed, holding that any timely motion permitted by the rules stays the running of appeal time until disposed of, without regard to its merits or the underlying procedural posture, and that defendants should not lose appellate rights due to counsel's filing choices.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a petition for certiorari review filed by Gaines Construction Company in the Florida Supreme Court against respondent James Sottile, Jr., seeking to challenge a lower court decision referenced as 281 So.2d 558. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. Four justices concurred in the denial, while one justice dissented.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Alberto Guerrero's conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny, along with petit larceny, after he was observed taking a television and sweaters from an apartment but the state did not prove the items' value reached $100 or more. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the decision due to conflict with prior cases on the sufficiency of evidence for intent to commit grand larceny. The court reversed the conviction on the breaking and entering charge with intent to commit grand larceny, holding that while circumstances showed intent to steal property of some value, none supported an inference of intent to take items worth enough for grand larceny. It remanded with directions to enter a judgment for breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny and to resentence accordingly.

criminal law

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by James Monroe Looney, who suffered multiple injuries including a kidney contusion, fractured ribs, leg contusions, and a back strain after falling from a flatbed truck while working for W & J Construction Company. Shortly after the accident, while hospitalized, Looney experienced a posterior myocardial infarction and other chest conditions; the Judge of Industrial Claims found no causal connection between the heart attack and the workplace accident, leading to an apportionment that excluded 75% of his permanent total disability from the employer's liability. The Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the award. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence established a logical causal relationship between the accident and the heart attack under the rule from Fisher v. Carroll Daniel Fisher Construction Co., as the heart attack occurred immediately after severe chest trauma with supporting medical records and testimony, and the employer presented no more logical alternative cause. The court remanded for a new award that includes compensation for the disability attributable to the heart attack along with the other work-related injuries.

labor & employment

This case arose from the Florida Real Estate Commission's revocation of Bruce Kozerowitz's real estate registration after he refused to file a sworn answer to disciplinary charges, as required by Florida Statutes Section 475.30(1). Kozerowitz challenged the statute on self-incrimination grounds, but the District Court of Appeal upheld it based on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in the same matter. The Supreme Court treated the appeal as a petition for certiorari and reversed, noting that its prior ruling had been overruled by State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, which held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to penal administrative proceedings such as license revocations. The Court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional to the extent it forced a defendant to respond to charges in such a proceeding and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with Vining.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved petitioners who served a post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with a directed verdict on opposing counsel within the ten-day period under Rule 1.480(b) but filed it with the clerk two days late; the trial court denied the motion, and the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the judgment. The District Court dismissed the appeal as untimely, certifying the question of whether filing within ten days was required for the motion to be timely and toll the appeal period under Florida Appellate Rules. The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that service within the prescribed time is the critical act that renders the motion timely and proper, thereby tolling rendition of the judgment for appeal purposes, consistent with its precedent in Miami Transit Company v. Ford. The Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for consideration of the appeal on the merits, while also addressing the mandatory nature of attorneys' fees for successful condemnees in eminent domain proceedings.

procedure

In FMC Corporation v. Ivey Plants, Inc., the petitioner sought review by the Florida Supreme Court of a lower court decision through a petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari without further elaboration in its order. Four justices concurred in the denial, while one justice dissented from the decision.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case Stella v. Craine came before the Supreme Court of Florida on a petition for certiorari filed by Margaret K. Stella against Marvin Craine and others. The court denied the certiorari petition, leaving in place the lower court's ruling at 281 So.2d 584. All participating justices concurred in the denial without providing additional reasoning.

procedure

This case involved an employer's claim for reimbursement from Florida's Special Disability Trust Fund for excess workers' compensation benefits paid after an employee suffered a second industrial injury that merged with a pre-existing back condition from a prior accident. The Judge of Industrial Claims awarded reimbursement and costs, but the Industrial Relations Commission reversed both. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of costs, holding that no statute authorized taxing costs against the Fund in workers' compensation proceedings, but reversed the denial of reimbursement. The Court reasoned that the employer had actual knowledge of the employee's pre-existing permanent physical impairment, based on witnessing the first accident, receiving settlement documents showing a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity, and the employee's testimony, which satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 440.49 even without proof that the employer viewed the condition as a hindrance.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the State of Florida petitioning the Supreme Court of Florida for a writ of certiorari to review a lower court decision concerning Ellis Edmond. The court denied the petition for certiorari, leaving the lower court's ruling in place without further review. Four justices concurred in the denial, while one justice dissented.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Osman v. Osman was a petition for certiorari filed by Daniel Osman, M.D., against Gladys J. Osman in the Florida Supreme Court. The court denied the petition for review of the lower court decision reported at 280 So.2d 67. Four justices concurred in the denial, while one justice dissented, with no further explanation or reasoning provided in the opinion.

family law

The case involved Anthony DeJerinett filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of a lower court decision in a proceeding brought by the State of Florida. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The denial was unanimous, with Chief Justice Carlton and Justices Adkins, Boyd, McCain, and Dekle all concurring in the result.

criminal law

The case involved an appeal by William Henry Mask from his manslaughter conviction in Florida, where he challenged the constitutionality of statutes governing jury selection (§ 40.01) and manslaughter (§ 782.04) and raised issues with his sentencing. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the constitutional claims and no reversible error in other aspects of the trial. However, it held that the trial court improperly denied the defendant's request for a pre-sentence investigation and failed to allow presentation of mitigating evidence as required by then-applicable Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 3.780), which was triggered by the PSI motion. The court remanded the case for resentencing under updated rules that mandate consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances and a PSI in certain cases. The decision focused on procedural fairness in discretionary sentencing rather than the underlying conviction.

criminal lawprocedure