The case involved a negligence lawsuit by a fifteen-year-old plaintiff who injured her ankle in a storm drain at Walt Disney World's Downtown Disney complex after being directed to cross the street by a Disney crossing guard. The plaintiff claimed Disney was negligent in its mode of operation by channeling and directing guests to cross at a location with limited pedestrian safety, rather than alleging any defect in the drain itself. The trial court granted Disney a directed verdict after the plaintiff's case, finding insufficient evidence of negligence. The appellate court reversed, holding that evidence of the parking layout, landscaping, and crossing guard's directions could allow a reasonable jury to find that Disney breached its duty of reasonable care by creating a foreseeable risk, making the issues of breach and causation questions for the jury rather than appropriate for directed verdict. The court remanded for a new trial.
In this case, Michael Mordenti was convicted of first-degree murder for a third time based primarily on the testimony of Gail Mordenti Milligan, who claimed she arranged the murder-for-hire on behalf of the victim's husband, Larry Royston. The central issue was whether the trial court properly excluded testimony from Royston's attorney about statements Royston made before his suicide, including identifying someone else and denying any involvement by Mordenti. The majority of the District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in excluding this evidence on grounds of hearsay and attorney-client privilege, because any privilege had been waived or eliminated by the State's prior ex parte disclosure and the statements implicated core constitutional rights in determining guilt. The court therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. A dissent argued that the privilege protected the statements and would have affirmed the conviction.
Michael Paul Pankow was convicted of aggravated child abuse after a two-year-old child in his custody suffered severe burns to her feet, which experts determined were consistent with intentional immersion rather than an accident involving spilled water. Pankow appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to rebut his defense, improper admission of testimony about the child's fear of baths and of expert testimony on unrelated bruising, and incorrect scoring of victim injury points. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the expert testimony sufficient to send the case to the jury, the probative value of the challenged testimony outweighed any prejudice, the defense opened the door to the bruising evidence, and any sentencing-point error was harmless.
In Lopes v. Lopes, Lucilia Lopes sought a divorce after a fifteen-year marriage, but Luciano Lopes counterclaimed for annulment on the ground that her prior Dominican Republic divorce was invalid due to lack of residency by the parties, rendering their Connecticut marriage void under Florida law. The trial court annulled the marriage, finding it a nullity because the first marriage remained intact, and the appellate court affirmed, noting that common law or equitable marriages are not recognized in Florida and that the parties had not pleaded or proved the law of Connecticut or the Dominican Republic, leading to a presumption that those laws aligned with Florida's. The court further held that a third party like Luciano could challenge the validity of the prior divorce in this context and that the failure to raise issues such as full faith and credit below precluded consideration on appeal.
This case involved Allstate Insurance seeking to disqualify its former staff counsel, now at another firm, from handling multiple lawsuits against it in Brevard and Volusia County courts, on grounds that she was improperly using confidential information from her prior representation. Allstate asked the county courts to stay the disqualification motions while it pursued a related action in Orange County Circuit Court, but the courts denied the stays. The Brevard Circuit Court, acting in its appellate capacity, upheld the denials and awarded attorney's fees against Allstate under section 57.105, finding certiorari an improper remedy. The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted certiorari and quashed the fee award, holding that certiorari was an appropriate procedural vehicle and that staying proceedings to resolve the disqualification issue in one forum would prevent unnecessary duplication across dozens of cases.
The case involved Jennifer Naylor, who enrolled in a police officer certification training program at Valencia Community College and signed a general release of liability. She was injured during the training and sued the college and others for negligence, but the release barred her recovery. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling upholding the validity of the release, finding no clear public policy in the relevant statutes that would invalidate such releases, and deferring to the legislature on matters of public policy regarding police training.
