R. Fred Lewis

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estate of a passenger killed in an airplane crash against Aerolease, the owner-lessor of the aircraft. The plaintiff sought to hold Aerolease vicariously liable under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine for the pilot's alleged negligence, as well as for Aerolease's own negligent maintenance and inspection. The trial court granted summary judgment to Aerolease, finding that federal statute 49 U.S.C. § 44112 preempted the state-law vicarious liability claim. The Florida Supreme Court held that the federal statute does not preempt Florida law because its liability limitation applies only to injuries occurring 'on land or water,' not to deaths occurring in flight, and therefore the vicarious liability claim could proceed.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case arose from Lazaro Sosa's lawsuit against Safeway Premium Finance Company claiming that Safeway violated Florida statutes by knowingly charging an additional $20 service fee twice within a twelve-month period under premium finance agreements for automobile insurance. The trial court granted Sosa's motion for class certification, but the Third District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that commonality and predominance requirements under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 were not met. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District's decision, ruling that the appellate court applied the wrong standard of review by failing to defer to the trial court's factual findings and instead conducting a de novo review instead of reviewing for abuse of discretion. The Court further held that the Third District erred in its analysis of the statutory "knowingly" requirement and class certification criteria, approving decisions from other districts that properly addressed commonality and predominance when a common course of conduct was alleged.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case G.M. v. State involved a juvenile approached by undercover officers in a park who activated emergency lights on their unmarked vehicle, approached a parked Lexus, detected marijuana odor, and recovered contraband after G.M. placed it in his mouth, resulting in a possession charge. G.M. moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the light activation effected an unconstitutional seizure without reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court held that activation of police lights is not dispositive but only one factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances test for whether a seizure occurred. The court reasoned that per se rules are disfavored in Fourth Amendment analysis and that the inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have felt free to leave.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a conflict among Florida district courts of appeal over the standards juvenile courts must follow when departing from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommended restrictiveness level for committing a delinquent child to residential treatment. The Florida Supreme Court held that chapter 985, Florida Statutes, requires juvenile courts to justify any departure by providing reasons that compare the characteristics of the imposed restrictiveness level to the child's individual rehabilitative needs and treatment plan, supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The court reasoned that the statutory scheme, read as a whole, emphasizes both rehabilitation in the least restrictive setting and protection of the public, so departures cannot rely on information already considered by the DJJ or on generic factors. It therefore quashed the Fourth District's decision in E.A.R. and aligned with the standard applied by the First, Second, and Fifth Districts.

criminal law

This advisory opinion addresses the validity of financial impact statements prepared for two proposed Florida constitutional amendments that would add standards for drawing state legislative and congressional districts, including requirements for equal population, compactness, use of existing boundaries, contiguity, and prohibitions on favoring political parties, incumbents, or diluting minority voting power. The court reviewed whether the identical statements, which estimated increased state costs in the "millions of dollars" from anticipated litigation without further detail, complied with statutory requirements for clarity and lack of ambiguity. The court determined that the statements were invalid because the vague reference to "millions of dollars" could mislead voters about potential costs, consistent with prior precedent condemning imprecise fiscal language on ballots. The reasoning centered on the need for financial impact statements to be clear and unambiguous under section 100.371, Florida Statutes, so that voters receive accurate information about revenue or cost effects.

elections

This case is an advisory opinion requested by the Florida Attorney General on the validity of two initiative petitions proposing constitutional amendments to establish standards for legislative and congressional district boundaries. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether the proposals satisfy the single-subject requirement of the state constitution and whether their ballot titles and summaries comply with statutory requirements. The court concluded that the amendments meet these standards because they address interrelated redistricting criteria without engaging in logrolling or implicitly repealing other constitutional provisions, and the summaries accurately reflect the proposals' effects on party favoritism, minority voting rights, contiguity, compactness, and population equality. As a result, the court approved both amendments for placement on the ballot.

electionscivil rights

The case involved a wrongful death claim by Kelly Wallace against the Marion County Sheriff, alleging that two deputies who responded to a 911 call about her mother Brenda failed to properly conduct an undertaken safety check, which increased the risk of harm and led to Brenda's death. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fifth District decision and exercised conflict jurisdiction due to inconsistencies with prior cases on the undertaker's doctrine and sovereign immunity. The Court quashed the lower decision, holding that the doctrine applies when law-enforcement officers affirmatively respond to a call, engage the individual, and undertake a safety check that places the person in a zone of risk. It further reasoned that such actions are operational rather than discretionary, so sovereign immunity under section 768.28 does not bar the negligence claim.

criminal lawtorts & liability

This case involves the Florida Supreme Court's review of Barnes v. State, a decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal that had certified a question of great public importance. The proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of Martinez v. State. After that decision became final, the court directed the respondent to show cause why the Barnes ruling should not be quashed and remanded for reconsideration in light of Martinez. Upon consideration of the parties' responses, the court granted review, quashed the decision under review, and remanded the matter to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration applying the Martinez precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the Florida Supreme Court's review of a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision in a criminal matter involving respondent Kevin Slattery, where the district court had certified a question of great public importance. The Supreme Court stayed proceedings pending its resolution of Martinez v. State. After that decision became final, the court directed the parties to address whether it should quash the Slattery decision and remand for reconsideration. Upon review, the court exercised jurisdiction, granted the petition for review, quashed the decision below, and remanded the case to the Fifth District for application of its Martinez ruling.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the Florida Supreme Court's review of a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in McJimsey v. State that expressly conflicted with the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Martinez v. State. The court stayed the proceedings pending its disposition of Martinez and, after that decision became final, directed the parties to address whether jurisdiction should be exercised to quash McJimsey and remand for reconsideration. Upon review of the responses and jurisdictional briefs, the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction based on the direct conflict, granted the petition for review, quashed the decision below, and remanded the matter to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for application of Martinez.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the Florida Supreme Court's review of a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision in a criminal matter involving respondent Henry Blanton, in which the district court had certified a question of great public importance. The Supreme Court stayed proceedings pending its resolution of Martinez v. State. After that decision became final, the court directed the parties to address whether it should exercise jurisdiction, quash the Blanton ruling, and remand for reconsideration in light of Martinez. Upon review of the responses, the court granted the petition for review, quashed the decision below, and remanded the case to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for further proceedings applying Martinez.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves the Florida Supreme Court's review of a decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Zinnerman v. State, which had certified a question of great public importance. The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings pending its decision in Martinez v. State. After Martinez was decided, the Court exercised jurisdiction, granted review, quashed the lower court's decision in Zinnerman, and remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Martinez.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the Florida Supreme Court's review of a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision in Bertke v. State, which had relied on the Third District's ruling in Martinez v. State. The Supreme Court stayed proceedings pending its own decision in Martinez, where it approved the result but not the reasoning of the lower court opinion. After Martinez was finalized, the Court accepted jurisdiction, quashed the Bertke decision, and remanded the matter to the Fifth District for reconsideration based on the Martinez holding.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the Florida Supreme Court's review of a decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Sloss v. State, which had certified a question of great public importance. The court stayed proceedings pending its ruling in Martinez v. State and later directed the respondent to show cause why the Sloss decision should not be quashed and remanded in light of Martinez. Respondent conceded that Martinez controls the outcome, and the court accordingly granted review, quashed the decision under review, and remanded the matter to the Fifth District for reconsideration based on Martinez.

criminal law

This Florida Supreme Court case involved review of Granberry v. State, a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision that had certified conflict with the Third District's Martinez v. State ruling on an unspecified legal issue. The Court had stayed the Granberry proceedings while resolving Martinez, in which it ultimately approved the Third District's holding. After Martinez became final, the Court directed the parties to address whether it should quash Granberry and remand for reconsideration in light of Martinez. Upon review of the responses, the Court granted the petition for review, quashed the Fifth District's Granberry decision, and remanded the case to that court for application of the Martinez precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether prior uncounseled misdemeanor DUI convictions punishable by more than six months' imprisonment but resulting in no actual jail time could be used to enhance a subsequent DUI charge from a misdemeanor to a felony under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court rephrased the certified question from the Fourth District to address the scope of a defendant's right to counsel under article I, section 16 of the Florida Constitution when the State seeks to rely on such prior convictions for enhancement purposes. The court declined to recede from its precedents in Hlad v. State and State v. Beach, concluding that the state constitutional right to counsel prevents the use of these uncounseled convictions to create a felony charge, even though the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nichols v. United States would permit it under the federal Sixth Amendment. The decision rested on independent state grounds protecting the right to counsel and treating the prior convictions as an element of the enhanced offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation dispute in which employee Flamily sought to set aside a 1996 lump-sum settlement agreement approved by a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) after he was later diagnosed with hepatitis C allegedly contracted on the job. The First District Court of Appeal had held that the JCC lacked authority to vacate the settlement under the 2001 version of section 440.20(11)(c), Florida Statutes, creating conflict with other district courts. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, ruling that the statute's text—which requires JCC approval only as to attorney's fees and does not otherwise limit information or documentation—does not strip JCCs of their longstanding power to vacate or set aside settlement agreements. The Court emphasized that the provision addresses only the approval process for represented claimants and leaves intact the JCC's authority to address claims of fraud, mistake, or other grounds for vacating prior orders.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Sims v. State, the defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death after striking and killing a pedestrian while driving, and the trial court added victim-injury points to his sentencing scoresheet, which raised his minimum prison term before granting a downward departure. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the imposition of those points, but the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the case due to conflict with decisions from other districts. The Supreme Court quashed the Fifth District's decision, holding that victim-injury points may be scored only if there is a causal connection between the charged offense of leaving the scene and the victim's death or injury. The Court reasoned that the medical evidence established the death resulted solely from the initial unavoidable impact, with no evidence that the defendant's departure from the scene caused or contributed to the victim's injuries.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant in a Florida felony DUI prosecution has a right to a jury trial on the existence of three or more prior DUI convictions in the second phase of a bifurcated proceeding. The trial court allowed the judge to decide the prior-conviction issue after the jury found guilt on the current incident, based on counsel's stipulation to a bench trial. The Florida Supreme Court approved the district court's result that no constitutional violation occurred, but clarified the applicable waiver standards. The court explained that the prior-conviction element must be decided by a jury unless the defendant personally makes a knowing and voluntary waiver, and that felony DUI carries a right to jury trial because of its penalties.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether police officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop of George Baptiste based solely on an anonymous 911 tip reporting that a man matching his description had waved a firearm outside a grocery store. Officers stopped Baptiste at gunpoint, frisked him, and recovered a gun from his pocket after he admitted possessing it; he was then charged as a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The Florida Supreme Court held that the anonymous tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability under the Fourth Amendment, as clarified in Florida v. J.L., because officers observed no suspicious behavior and the caller was never identified or corroborated before the stop. The court therefore concluded the evidence should have been suppressed and quashed the Third District’s decision affirming the conviction. The opinion distinguishes the facts from cases involving identified citizen informants or observed criminal activity.

criminal lawguns