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

This case involves Tommy Sands Groover's appeal from the denial of his postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating his competency to stand trial while he was administered the antipsychotic drug Mellaril. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court rejected the claim, finding no evidence of incompetency or deficient counsel performance under Strickland v. Washington standards. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel was not required to seek a competency evaluation absent any indication of incompetency, as supported by testimony from attorneys, observers, and experts showing Groover was lucid and oriented during proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a medical malpractice wrongful death action in which the plaintiff demanded a jury trial under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430. After a default was entered against the defendant physician, damages were assessed in a non-jury proceeding, resulting in a final judgment; the defendant later moved under Rule 1.540(b) to set aside the judgment on grounds of mistake or that it was void for lack of a jury trial. The Florida Supreme Court held that Rule 1.540 is not the proper vehicle for this challenge, as the rule does not cover judicial errors of law and the judgment was not void given that the defendant received notice and participated in the proceedings. Instead, the court reasoned, such errors must be addressed through a timely motion for new trial under Rule 1.530 or by direct appeal. The court therefore approved the district court's reinstatement of the judgment while disapproving conflicting decisions from other districts.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Joe Elton Nixon's appeal of his convictions for first-degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, and arson, as well as his death sentence, stemming from the 1984 killing of Jeanne Bickner in Tallahassee, Florida. Nixon argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by conceding his guilt without his explicit approval and raised multiple other challenges to the guilt and penalty phases. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that Nixon was aware of and did not object to the defense strategy of conceding guilt in hopes of leniency, as confirmed by post-trial findings, and that the remaining claims lacked merit or did not warrant reversal under applicable legal standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Charles Kight, a Florida death row inmate convicted of first-degree murder, who appealed the trial court's denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence while also petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. The primary issues addressed included whether files prepared by Kight's trial counsel and held by the Office of Capital Collateral Representative were subject to disclosure under Florida's public records law (chapter 119), as well as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and alleged Brady violations concerning concessions to jailhouse informants. The Florida Supreme Court held that the defense files were private records of the defendant, not governmental public records subject to chapter 119 disclosure. It further determined that Kight's other claims were either procedurally barred, had been resolved on direct appeal, or lacked merit based on the evidentiary hearing findings that no undisclosed concessions were made and any evidence was not material. The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and denied the habeas petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Virgil Robinson, who was convicted of resisting arrest with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, and simple battery. The trial court imposed a departure sentence above the sentencing guidelines but failed to provide contemporaneous written reasons for the departure as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11). After the district court initially vacated the sentence and allowed resentencing with proper written findings, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the matter due to conflict with its prior decision in Pope v. State. The Court held that when a departure sentence is reversed for lack of written reasons, remand must be for sentencing within the guidelines without any option for further departure. Accordingly, it quashed the portion of the district court's decision permitting departure and directed resentencing within the guidelines.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a police officer's testimony about receiving information that the defendant was operating a major gambling business constituted inadmissible hearsay in a racketeering and bookmaking prosecution. The Florida Supreme Court held that the district court correctly found the testimony erroneous when elicited on direct examination before the defense had raised the issue of targeting, but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was not emphasized, was offered only to rebut defense opening statements, and the state presented independent evidence of guilt. The Court reasoned that under the Florida Evidence Code, such statements are not hearsay if offered for a non-truth purpose like explaining investigative motive, though they were improperly admitted prematurely here, and clarified that its pre-Evidence Code decision in Collins did not create an absolute bar. The Court therefore quashed the district court's reversal of the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In Fitzgerald v. Cestari, the parents of a seven-year-old girl sued the owners of a single-family home that they had leased to others, seeking damages after the child was injured when she ran into a closed sliding glass door that was not made of safety glass and had no markings. The trial court granted summary judgment for the owners, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court approved that decision, holding that the lack of safety glass was a latent defect that the owners could not have discovered through reasonable inspection, so under the Slavin doctrine the original builder, not the owners, was responsible for any violation of the building code. The court further held that the owners had no duty to place decals or other warnings on the door, as the tenants in possession and control of the premises bore responsibility for warning visitors of any dangers created by the door's use.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved Terri Lynn Conley, who developed cervical adenosis and related conditions linked to her mother's ingestion of the drug DES while pregnant in 1955-1956, but could not identify the specific manufacturer due to the drug's generic nature, passage of time, and lack of records. Conley sued multiple DES producers on theories including negligence and market share liability to relax the traditional tort requirement of identifying a particular defendant. The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, recognizing a cause of action for negligent manufacturing and marketing of DES when the plaintiff, after reasonable effort, cannot identify the responsible manufacturer. The court reasoned that the inherent identification difficulties in DES cases justified adopting a modified market share liability theory, under which defendants' liability would be several and apportioned according to their shares of the relevant market, drawing from approaches in other jurisdictions.

torts & liability

In Colbert v. State, the petitioner was convicted on multiple counts of kidnapping, sexual battery, and lewd assault after a jury deliberated extensively and received an instruction from the trial court about returning partial verdicts and continuing on undecided counts, following an unavailable request for testimony. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the case due to conflict with prior precedents on jury instructions and notice requirements under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410. The Court approved the district court's decision, holding that the trial judge's failure to provide advance notice to counsel of the specific instruction constituted error but did not amount to per se reversible error, as the communication was not outside the rule's notice requirements in a way that mandated automatic reversal. The core reasoning distinguished this from cases applying a strict per se rule and found the modified instruction permissible under the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over attorney's fees under a prevailing-party clause in a real estate purchase and sale contract after the trial court denied specific performance. The trial court found that no contract ever existed because there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms such as financing and the disposition of an existing mortgage, and it also denied the seller's request for fees. The district court affirmed the denial of fees on the ground that the fee provision never came into being. The Florida Supreme Court upheld that result, holding that where a contract is found never to have been formed due to lack of mutual assent, a party cannot recover attorney's fees based on a provision in that document.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Alberto Farinas, who was convicted of first-degree murder, armed burglary, and armed kidnapping after he abducted and fatally shot his former partner, Elsidia Landin, following her decision to leave him and move in with her parents. The jury recommended the death penalty, and the trial court imposed it after finding three aggravating circumstances (including commission during a kidnapping, heinousness, and cold premeditation) that outweighed the limited mitigating factors related to Farinas's mental and emotional state. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the sentences for the non-capital offenses, holding that any evidentiary errors were harmless given Farinas's admissions and eyewitness testimony. However, the court vacated the death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for twenty-five years, determining that the mitigating evidence of mental disturbance and impairment, though not extreme, warranted this reduction in light of the overall record.

criminal law

In Huff v. State, a Florida death row inmate appealed the trial court's order striking his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which had been signed by an out-of-state attorney employed by the Capital Collateral Representative who simultaneously sought pro hac vice admission. The trial court struck the motion as null and void without first addressing the admission request, finding the signer unauthorized to practice in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court should have ruled on the pro hac vice motion before striking the filing and that denial of admission would have been an abuse of discretion given the attorney's qualifications and employment. The Court further clarified that the two-year filing deadline for the 3.850 motion ran from the date this Court issued its mandate on direct appeal, making the motion timely, and remanded for consideration of the motion on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' destruction of over 500,000 citrus nursery trees at Richard Polk's nursery after discovering lesions consistent with a bacterial disease, prompting Polk to file an inverse condemnation action seeking compensation under the state and federal constitutions. The trial court ruled the destruction constituted an unconstitutional taking because it was arbitrary and failed to prevent public harm, awarded Polk over $3 million in damages following a jury trial on compensation, and rejected the Department's argument that the claim was a tort governed by sovereign immunity statutes. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court examined whether the agency's action could be challenged in an inverse condemnation proceeding, considered only the scientific knowledge available at the time of destruction rather than later findings about the disease's lower virulence, and addressed the distinction between preventing public harm and conferring a public benefit in evaluating the taking claim.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned two citrus nurseries that sued the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for inverse condemnation after the agency burned their healthy nursery stock in 1984 under citrus canker quarantine regulations. The trial court found a taking requiring full compensation under the state constitution, and a jury awarded damages including the value of destroyed stock and lost production; the district court affirmed in part, reversed the lost-production award, and certified questions on valuation timing and allowable damages. The Florida Supreme Court held that compensation is generally measured by fair market value at the time of destruction but may consider prospective net revenue if no market existed due to the stock's immaturity, rejected consequential business damages for lost production, and remanded for consideration of whether the quarantine constituted a temporary taking. The court affirmed the district court's rulings in part and reversed in part.

propertybusiness & regulatory