William G. Terrell

The case involved J.C. Benefield, who was convicted of attempted grand larceny after offering to obtain a liquor license in exchange for $5,000; police officers, acting on information from the payers and without a warrant, entered his home without announcing their authority or purpose, arrested him, and seized marked bills used in the transaction. Benefield moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful search and seizure, but the trial court denied the motion and the district court of appeal affirmed the conviction. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, holding that the entry violated Florida Statute § 901.19(1), which requires officers to announce their authority and purpose before entering a dwelling to make an arrest, even when probable cause exists. Because no exception to the announcement rule applied and the officers lacked a warrant, the arrest was unlawful and the subsequent search incident to it invalid, rendering the seized money inadmissible.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a rear-end automobile collision in which petitioners' car struck respondents' vehicle, injuring a 13-year-old minor; the minor and his father sued for personal injuries, medical expenses, and loss of services. At trial, the jury found petitioners liable but awarded no damages, and the trial court denied a motion for new trial. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and ordered a new trial on damages only, reasoning that uncontradicted medical testimony on a whiplash injury required at least an award of medical expenses. The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari due to conflict with a Second District decision and quashed the district court's ruling, holding that juries may weigh conflicting evidence on the necessity and reasonableness of medical expenses and that a verdict may be set aside for inadequacy only if induced by prejudice, passion, or misconception of the law or evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved landowners challenging their 1960 property tax assessments in Osceola County, seeking a mandatory injunction to require reassessment of their lands as agricultural under § 193.11(3), Florida Statutes, which mandates acreage-based valuation for bona fide farming uses regardless of subdivision plats. The circuit court found the tax authorities had disregarded the statute, enjoined collection of the taxes, and ordered reassessment, but the district court of appeal reversed in a 2-1 decision, adopting a narrower interpretation of the statute to avoid rendering it unconstitutional under Article IX, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution requiring uniform and equal taxation and just valuation. The Supreme Court of Florida considered appeals and a petition for certiorari, determining it had jurisdiction because the district court had initially passed on the statute's validity and constitutional issues were genuinely presented rather than abstract.

taxesproperty

In this case, architect William Bigoney sued homeowners C.E. Hightower and others to foreclose a statutory lien on their property for approximately $14,000 in unpaid fees under a contract for architectural services on a residence. The Hightowers answered by contesting the lien amount and filed a compulsory counterclaim seeking damages for alleged negligent performance of the contract, requesting a jury trial on those legal issues. Lower courts denied the jury trial request, ruling that the equity court could adjudicate all interwoven claims. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a compulsory counterclaim raising legal claims does not waive the constitutional right to a jury trial under Section 3 of the Declaration of Rights when timely demanded, even in an equity proceeding involving a statutory lien. The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with preserving that jury trial right on separable legal issues.

procedureproperty

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Theodore Sosenko, who suffered a compensable ankle fracture when a scaffold collapsed at work and later experienced a heart attack, which he attributed to pain, inactivity, anxiety, and increased smoking from the initial injury. The deputy commissioner found a causal link and ordered the carrier to cover medical expenses for the heart attack, but the Florida Industrial Commission reversed, holding there was no competent evidence of causation and that the claim did not meet standards for heart-related cases. On review, the Supreme Court of Florida granted certiorari, quashed the commission's order, and remanded the matter to the deputy commissioner. The court reasoned that the commission had applied an incorrect legal standard from prior heart-attack precedents, instead requiring evaluation under the rule that a subsequent injury is compensable if it is the direct and natural result of the primary compensable injury unless the claimant's own negligence acts as an independent intervening cause. The deputy was directed to re-evaluate the evidence and issue new findings consistent with that standard.

labor & employment

The case concerned the City of New Smyrna Beach's effort to issue sewer revenue certificates to fund sewer improvements, payable from sewer system net revenues, cigarette taxes, and special assessments on benefited properties, without using ad valorem taxes. Intervening taxpayers challenged the validation, arguing the certificates were actually bonds requiring freeholder approval and questioning the assessments' validity and other procedural matters. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's validation decree, holding that the certificates were not constitutional bonds because they explicitly avoided pledging ad valorem taxes and were secured only by the specified revenues and assessments. The court found no evidence of improper assessments, no abuse of discretion in procedural rulings, and sufficient statutory authority for pledging the cigarette taxes.

taxesproperty

This case involved a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Perry Nichols, a member of The Florida Bar, who was charged with violating Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics by indirectly advertising his services through self-laudation. Specifically, Nichols provided information to reporters for a Miami News article about his new office building and professional practice, which the Grievance Committee and Board of Governors found to be improper indirect advertisement warranting a public reprimand. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the matter and quashed the Board of Governors' recommendation, determining that no violation occurred. The core reasoning was that the article constituted legitimate news coverage of a newsworthy event rather than prohibited self-promotion, and that publishing factual details about a lawyer's office building as news in a single issue does not offend the traditions of the profession under the canon.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the City of Tampa seeking validation of $10 million in special obligation bonds (Series E) to acquire land from the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, make site improvements, construct a convention center, and complete street improvements, with part of the work on land leased from the railroad under a 35-year term plus renewal and purchase options. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's validation decree. The court held that the projects constituted a valid public purpose for which municipal funds could be expended, that the lease terms secured the city's non-cancellable long-term use and control without creating a forfeiture risk to the private lessor, and that the bonds, payable solely from utilities service tax revenues without pledging the city's general credit, did not violate the constitutional prohibition on lending public credit to private corporations.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by an employee injured in a 1956 workplace accident at Hood's Dairy that caused multiple permanent injuries, including to his hand, pelvis, urethra, and genitals, resulting in impotence and ongoing medical needs. The deputy commissioner found a 35% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole based on reduced earning capacity despite no wage loss, plus additional disability to a finger and lifetime medical care. The full commission reversed, ruling there was no loss of wage-earning capacity and no refusal of medical care by the employer. The Supreme Court of Florida granted certiorari, quashed the commission's order, and reinstated the deputy's award with directions to align the medical provision with statutory language, reasoning that post-injury earnings are only one factor in assessing disability under the Workmen's Compensation Act and not the sole test.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the validation of $21 million in revenue bonds issued by the Inter-American Center Authority to finance the construction of an Inter-American Cultural and Trade Center in Dade County, Florida, including the use of conveyed property known as the Graves Tract and a trust indenture securing the bonds. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decree validating the bonds and related proceedings. The court reasoned that the project served a primary public purpose of developing cultural and trade relations, with any private benefits being incidental, and that the bond issuance did not violate constitutional provisions against using public funds for private purposes, consistent with prior precedent in a similar 1955 case.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Lee v. State, Charles H. Lee was convicted of first-degree murder after shooting and killing Leroy A. Collins in Levy County, Florida, and sentenced to death following a jury trial where he had entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity before abandoning the latter. On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, Lee challenged the conviction on two grounds: that a juror had expressed bias before trial by stating he would give the defendant the "works" if seated, and that the evidence failed to prove premeditation. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial judge properly resolved the factual dispute over juror bias through voir dire and post-trial examination without reversible error, and that the evidence of the defendant's pursuit of the victims' car, repeated shooting into it, and related threats was sufficient to establish premeditation, including under the transferred intent doctrine even if the primary target was Lee's estranged wife. The court further noted that it had reviewed the full record as required by statute and found no basis for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Young v. State, three defendants were convicted of first-degree murder for fatally shooting Eugene Arnold Richardson in Duval County and sentenced to death after a jury trial. On appeal, they challenged the admission of their confessions, arguing violations of Florida statutes requiring prompt presentment before a magistrate and advice of rights, as well as alleged improper prosecutorial arguments referencing a 'life of crime.' The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that Florida follows its own rule requiring confessions to be voluntary (with the trial judge determining voluntariness outside the jury's presence) rather than the federal McNabb-Mallory exclusionary rule for procedural delays, and that extra-judicial confessions need not include warnings to be admissible; the court also found the arguments issue unpreserved and unsupported in the record.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Donald Jones, an employee of Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, who was injured in a compensable accident on November 19, 1960. The employer failed to file required reports, provide medical treatment, or pay benefits, and the deputy commissioner awarded the claimant payment for medical bills and attorney's fees, which the full commission affirmed. The Supreme Court of Florida denied certiorari, holding that an award of attorney's fees under § 440.34(1) does not require a prior award of compensation benefits as long as the claimant receives a beneficial award, and that the employer waived the timely medical report filing requirement under § 440.13(1) due to its own inconsistent conduct in denying responsibility under the act.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by the minor children of Joseph Lee Johnson, who was struck and killed by a car while crossing a road near his workplace at Koffee Kettle Restaurant in 1959. Johnson, a handyman living on-site, had left the premises briefly during working hours, and the deputy commissioner found the incident compensable based on evidence that he frequently ran errands for the restaurant and statutory presumptions under § 440.26, Florida Statutes. The full Florida Industrial Commission reversed, ruling there was insufficient proof the death arose out of and in the course of employment. On certiorari review, the Florida Supreme Court quashed the commission's order and reinstated the deputy's award, holding that the facts supported a reasonable inference of employment-related activity and that the presumptions applied in the absence of substantial contrary evidence, such as intoxication as the primary cause. The court directed reinstatement of benefits calculated on Johnson's $60 weekly wage including room and board.

labor & employment

The case involved Willard Carnley and Pearl Carnley, who were convicted by a jury in Escambia County of incest and fondling (with Pearl as accessory before the fact) and sentenced to six months to twenty years in prison. They petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for writs of habeas corpus, arguing they lacked counsel, were unable to defend themselves, and faced other trial errors including improper sentencing for multiple offenses. The court discharged the writs, finding that the petitioners had actively participated in the trial by questioning witnesses and making arguments, that Florida law did not require appointed counsel in non-capital cases, and that the record showed they were informed of their rights with sufficient evidence supporting the convictions. The sentence was deemed within legal limits under the applicable statutes, and Pearl Carnley's parole status did not bar her claim but also did not warrant relief.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, petitioners sought cancellation of a 1923 deed more than 32 years later in 1955. The trial court initially overruled a motion to dismiss but later granted it after evidence of laches was presented at hearing, finding the claim barred despite the defense not being pleaded in the answer. The District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that laches must be raised in the answer. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, ruling that under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.15(b), when issues like laches are tried by the parties' consent through unobjected evidence, the pleadings are treated as amended to conform to the proof, creating an exception to the waiver rule in Rule 1.11(h).

procedureproperty

The case concerned whether Dade County's adoption of metropolitan government under a 1956 constitutional amendment and subsequent traffic ordinances (57-12 and 57-13) repealed the City of Miami's charter powers and ordinances to regulate traffic and try violations in its municipal court after March 1, 1958. Plaintiffs Keton and Russo, convicted or fined in city court for traffic offenses after that date, brought a class action seeking declaratory relief, return of fines paid, and an injunction against further enforcement by the city. The Florida Supreme Court held that the county ordinances validly superseded and repealed conflicting city charter provisions and traffic ordinances, authorizing the class suit for declaratory judgment on jurisdiction. However, it ruled that the fines already paid without timely objection or appeal could not be recovered, as they involved governmental functions and were barred by established principles against such refunds. The decree was affirmed in part and reversed in part accordingly.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Fulton, who was convicted of manslaughter by culpable negligence after his car struck another vehicle while attempting to pass it on a bridge, resulting in the death of the other driver. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the conviction and five-year sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of culpable negligence. The court reasoned that Fulton's actions, including driving after consuming alcohol, attempting to pass on a bridge with ample space available, and showing disregard for the safety of others on the highway, demonstrated reckless indifference to life and safety as required under the statute.

criminal law

This case concerned a challenge by Democratic groups to provisions in Dade County's Home Rule Charter requiring non-partisan elections for county commissioners, which conflicted with Florida's general election laws. The trial court held the provisions unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement, ordering compliance with partisan election rules. The Florida Supreme Court reversed in part, ruling that the non-partisan provisions were valid. The court reasoned that Section 11, Article VIII of the Florida Constitution expressly empowered Dade County electors to adopt a charter providing for a method of electing commissioners different from general state laws.

elections

James H. Larry was convicted of first-degree murder without mercy recommendation and sentenced to death for killing Alex Salters by repeatedly striking him with a hatchet. Larry appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditated design and that he acted in self-defense during a fight initiated by the victim. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the physical evidence, the nature and number of wounds, Larry's contradictory statements, and his possession of the victim's money supported an inference of premeditation by the jury. The court further held that the evidence also permitted the jury to conclude the killing occurred during a robbery, in which case premeditation is presumed as a matter of law.

criminal law