Raymond Ehrlich

The case involved a divorce and child custody dispute between spouses who had lived in both Florida and New York, with the husband initiating proceedings in New York and the wife filing in Florida after returning with their child. The Florida trial court granted a divorce and awarded custody to the wife, finding that the New York court lacked proper jurisdiction under the UCCJA and that the wife's agreement to litigate custody in New York was coerced. The district court reversed the custody ruling but allowed the dissolution action to proceed in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court approved the district court's decision on custody, holding that Florida should decline jurisdiction because New York had initiated proceedings first and the UCCJA prioritizes avoiding conflicting custody determinations when another state is exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the Act, as parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement. The court noted that evidentiary hearings on jurisdictional facts under the UCCJA had not occurred in New York.

family lawprocedure

This case involves Florida's alcoholic beverage tax scheme under sections 564.06 and 565.12, which provided preferential tax rates and exemptions to certain beverages made from Florida-grown crops and was previously ruled to unconstitutionally discriminate against interstate commerce. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court considered the state's obligation under the Due Process Clause to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to McKesson, which had paid the higher tax rates. The state elected to retroactively assess and collect taxes from McKesson's competitors who had benefited from the preferences, rather than issuing a refund. The court held that the state may implement this remedy through an emergency rule, so long as the resulting tax scheme treats all distributors consistently with the Commerce Clause, with any uncollectible amounts potentially entitling McKesson to a proportional refund.

taxesbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsfederal power

In State v. Schuck, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter after shooting her ex-boyfriend, with her defense claiming the shooting was accidental. The trial court provided the standard short-form jury instruction on excusable homicide and referenced it when defining manslaughter. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding the instruction inherently misleading and thus fundamental error even without an objection. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, holding that providing the short-form instruction without the long-form version did not constitute fundamental error when the long-form was not requested, consistent with its ruling in State v. Smith. The court remanded with directions to affirm the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a personal injury suit by Alonzo Raynor, as guardian for his son who was severely injured in a 1985 car accident in Florida, against Equilease Corporation as the alleged owner/lessor of the tractor-trailer driven by defendant Alexis de la Nuez. Raynor claimed Equilease was vicariously liable under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment for Equilease, which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, and the Florida Supreme Court approved the result. The court reasoned that Equilease was not an owner because it had transferred legal title and beneficial ownership via what was in substance a conditional sales contract under New York law, with the buyers receiving possession, control, and an unconditional option to purchase that had been prepaid. Equilease's role was limited to collecting payments, so it had no vicarious liability for the accident.

torts & liability

The case involved Rica Gretz, an indigent claimant denied unemployment benefits, who challenged Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission rules requiring her to pay for transcripts and copies of the agency hearing record to pursue judicial review. The Supreme Court of Florida addressed a certified question on whether such fees could be charged, holding that the rules were invalid because they conflicted with section 443.041(2)(a), which prohibits charging claimants any fees in unemployment proceedings. The court reasoned that the statute's broad language bars fees regardless of whether the service is mandatory, and that the specific unemployment statute controls over the general administrative procedure statute allowing transcripts at actual cost. It further noted that section 120.57 requires transcripts at no more than actual cost but does not authorize fees when a more specific law sets them at zero.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned the proper method for calculating the amount of restitution owed to a crime victim under Florida Statutes section 775.089 after a conviction for grand theft auto. The trial court had ordered restitution based on the owner's testimony about the car's purchase price, condition, and related expenses, but the First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that fair market value at the time of the offense—proven either directly or through specific factors including depreciation—was required. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, ruling that the restitution statute does not mandate fair market value as the exclusive standard and instead grants the trial court discretion to determine the victim's loss, provided the factors listed in section 775.089(6) are considered and the state meets its burden by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court distinguished this from cases where property value is an element of the underlying crime, noting that restitution serves a compensatory purpose that may allow alternative valuation approaches.

criminal lawprocedure