Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Living constitutionalismOriginalism
In [4] applies equal protection to invalidate statutory bar on illegitimate children's inheritance rights, following evolving federal precedent rather than original understanding. In Re Estate of Burris ↗
In [6] and [3] approves or modifies lower-court rulings while respecting controlling Florida and U.S. Supreme Court authority without revisiting settled doctrine. Rinker Materials Corp. v. PALMER… ↗ State v. Holmes ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
The case concerned whether a bank could exercise a right of set-off against funds in a non-negotiable certificate of deposit that had been assigned as collateral for a bond purchase, after the assignee sought payment. The Florida Supreme Court answered certified questions from the Fifth Circuit by holding that the assignment was covered by Article 9 of the Florida Uniform Commercial Code as a transaction creating a security interest in an instrument. It further concluded that the transfer was not excluded under sections 679.104(9) or (11), that section 679.318(4) did not invalidate contractual prohibitions on assignment, and that the bank was not an account debtor entitled to defenses under section 679.318(1). The court's reasoning rested on the statutory definitions and scope of Article 9, the intent to create a security interest, and the classification of the certificate of deposit as personal property subject to secured transaction rules rather than excluded deposit accounts or general intangibles. The opinion did not resolve whether the bank ultimately prevailed on its set-off claim outside Article 9.
The case involved a university professor who showed the film 'Deep Throat' to his class and voluntarily surrendered the videotape to prosecutors during an investigation; the state then petitioned under Florida Statute section 847.011(7) to have the film confiscated and destroyed as obscene. The trial court upheld the statute and ordered destruction, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed. The court held that no valid 'seizure' occurred because the professor withdrew consent and no neutral magistrate made a preliminary finding of probable obscenity, as required by established Fourth Amendment standards for materials protected by the First Amendment. It further reasoned that the statute's destruction provision is ancillary and applies only after a judicial determination of criminal conduct under the statute's other subsections, which had not happened here.
The case concerned a malicious prosecution claim brought by Kiplan Owens against the City of Pensacola after police arrested him for obstructing an officer by placing "Speed Trap Ahead" signs, charges that a county judge later dismissed. The Florida Supreme Court resolved a certified question on whether the court or jury decides the existence of probable cause in a malicious prosecution action when the underlying facts are undisputed. The court held that the trial judge determines probable cause as a matter of law in such circumstances, quashed the First District's reversal, and directed affirmance of the trial court's directed verdict for the city, disapproving Oosterhoudt v. Montgomery Ward & Co. to the extent it assigned the issue to the jury.
The case concerned whether Florida landowners could retain an agricultural tax assessment and classification for property that had been rezoned at their request from one non-agricultural category (R-1AA) to another (planned unit development), even though the actual use of the land remained agricultural. The trial court upheld denial of the classification under section 193.461(4)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1973). The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute applies only when land is rezoned from an agricultural use to a non-agricultural use, because the Greenbelt law's purpose is to encourage ongoing agricultural production and the provision targets speculative rezoning away from agriculture. The court construed the statute's language in favor of taxpayers where ambiguous and therefore did not reach the constitutional challenge to the law.
The case concerned the constitutionality of Section 171.0413(5), Florida Statutes (1977), which set conditions for municipalities to annex contiguous unincorporated territory, specifically requiring consent from a majority of non-registered-elector landowners if the area was 'predominantly owned' by them. A.B.A. Industries, a corporate landowner in the proposed annexation area, sued the City of Pinellas Park to enjoin a referendum, arguing the city had not obtained the required consents. The trial court ruled the provision unconstitutionally vague and in violation of one-person-one-vote principles. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed on vagueness grounds, holding that the statute failed to define key terms such as 'predominantly owned' (whether by number of owners or land area) or specify when consent must be obtained, leaving impermissible ambiguity that the judiciary could not resolve. The court did not reach the equal-protection claim.
In Faulkner v. Allstate Ins. Co., the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether an injured driver's failure to meet the no-fault insurance threshold under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act barred recovery for property damages, barred the spouse's derivative claim for loss of consortium, and precluded further litigation. The court held that the threshold requirement does not affect property damage claims, which remain available independently, but does bar loss of consortium claims because they are derivative and also ends further litigation on the personal injury matters. The decision reversed the lower courts because the trial court's jury instructions on the threshold and property damages were confusing and potentially misleading. The reasoning centered on the statute's text, which limits tort exemptions to bodily injury benefits under sections 627.736 and 627.737, and on prior precedent like Kluger v. White preserving constitutional access to courts for property damage remedies.