Leander J. Shaw jr

The case involved a negligence lawsuit by the parents of a child killed by a vehicle while crossing a road at night in an area with an inoperative streetlight; the parents sued Florida Power & Light Company for allegedly failing to maintain the light. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the utility company, and the district court affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings, relying on its holding in the related Clay Electric case that a utility company can assume a specific duty to maintain streetlights with due care. The Court instructed that the complaint's allegations must be taken as true when reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings and applied a de novo standard of review.

torts & liability

The case involved negligence claims filed by the grandmother and estate of a 14-year-old boy struck and killed by a truck while walking to his school bus stop in darkness caused by an inoperative streetlight. Clay Electric Cooperative, which had contracted with the local electric authority to maintain the streetlights and been paid to do so, moved for and obtained summary judgment on the ground that it owed no legally recognized duty to the decedent. The district court reversed, holding that a duty existed for purposes of the motion, and the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the matter due to conflict with another appellate decision. The court determined that Clay Electric owed a duty of reasonable care in maintaining the lights because the contract created foreseeable risks of harm to third-party pedestrians if the lights were not properly maintained, precluding summary judgment on that element.

torts & liability

The case concerned Florida's Parental Notice of Abortion Act, which required a minor seeking an abortion to notify a parent or obtain a judicial bypass by showing maturity or that the procedure was in her best interests. Lower courts had blocked enforcement of the never-implemented statute on constitutional grounds. The Florida Supreme Court held the Act unconstitutional under the state constitution's privacy provision, following its precedent in In re T.W. The court reasoned that the Act significantly burdened minors' privacy rights and that the state had not demonstrated a compelling interest, given inconsistent treatment of minors' medical decisions in other statutes. The decision left parents and minors free to consult without state-mandated notice or bypass procedures.

abortion

The case concerned the constitutionality of section 903.0471, Florida Statutes (2000), which authorizes a trial court to revoke a defendant's pretrial bond upon finding probable cause that the defendant committed a new offense while on release. Thomas Parker was arrested on initial charges, posted bond, and was later arrested on new drug charges; the trial court revoked his bond in the first case based solely on the probable cause affidavit for the new arrest, over defense objections regarding lack of notice and due process. Parker challenged the statute as violating article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution, which guarantees pretrial release on reasonable conditions unless detention is necessary to protect the community, ensure appearance at trial, or preserve judicial integrity. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the statute is constitutional, holding that it validly implements the constitutional provision by permitting revocation when a new arrest creates risk to those interests, without requiring additional evidentiary findings beyond probable cause.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves George James Trepal's appeals from the denial of his postconviction motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus after his convictions for the first-degree murder of Peggy Carr and related charges of attempted murder and poisoning with thallium. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of relief on both motions and denied the habeas petition. The court reasoned that many claims were procedurally barred, that Trepal failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard or entitlement to relief based on newly discovered evidence or Brady violations, and that other asserted errors lacked merit or did not undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Jimmie Lee Coney, who was convicted of first-degree murder and arson after setting his former prison cellmate on fire, leading to a death sentence based on multiple aggravating factors. After an evidentiary hearing on Coney's motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the circuit court vacated the death sentence due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the penalty phase and ordered a new penalty proceeding before a jury. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that decision, finding that counsel's failure to adequately investigate and present available mitigating evidence regarding Coney's background satisfied the Strickland standards for deficiency and prejudice, while rejecting Coney's remaining claims on cross-appeal and denying his separate habeas petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns William Gregory Thomas's appeal from the denial of his first motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 following his convictions for first-degree murder, burglary, and kidnapping of his wife. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling, concluding that Thomas's claims challenging the validity of a waiver of appellate rights (agreed to in a separate plea deal for murdering his mother) were procedurally barred because they could have been raised earlier. The court further held that his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel—regarding inadequate preparation, failure to investigate witnesses, and objections during the sentencing phase—were either not properly raised below or failed under the deficiency and prejudice standards, leading to denial of relief.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a divorce proceeding in which the trial court ordered that permanent periodic alimony payments to the former wife would be nontaxable to her. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed that portion of the judgment, holding that a state court lacks authority to alter the tax treatment of alimony under federal law and that only the parties themselves may designate payments as nontaxable. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the decision due to conflict with a Third District opinion and held that Internal Revenue Code sections 63 and 71, along with the related Treasury regulation, permit a divorce decree itself to designate alimony payments as excludable from the recipient's gross income and nondeductible by the payor. The Court therefore quashed the Fifth District's ruling, though it noted that the parties' final judgment had since been amended to remove the taxability provision.

family lawtaxes

The case concerned a lawsuit by the estate of a nursing home resident against the facility, alleging violations of the resident's statutory rights to adequate care under section 400.022, including failures to prevent pressure sores, monitor nutrition, and maintain records. The defendants argued the suit should be dismissed for not meeting the presuit notice and review requirements of chapter 766 applicable to medical negligence claims. The Florida Supreme Court held that compliance with section 766.106 presuit conditions is not required when a plaintiff asserts only claims under section 400.022. The court reasoned that the complaint relied exclusively on statutory rights rather than common law theories of professional negligence or vicarious liability for breaches by health care providers.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved a negligence lawsuit brought by S.A.P. against the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) alleging that HRS failed to supervise her foster care placement as a child, resulting in physical abuse in 1979. The suit was filed in 1995 after the four-year statute of limitations under section 768.28 had run, but S.A.P. claimed HRS actively concealed facts about its negligence through internal records and obstruction of investigations. The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the doctrine of fraudulent concealment or equitable estoppel could toll or bar the limitations defense in a negligence action against the state. The court held that such equitable principles apply to prevent the state from asserting the statute of limitations when its own misconduct caused the delay, based on the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity and the principle that defendants should not benefit from their wrongful acts, taking the complaint's allegations as true.

proceduretorts & liabilitycivil rights

In this case, Clyde Timothy Bunkley was convicted in 1987 of armed burglary after being found with a folded pocketknife (blade 2½ to 3 inches) during a burglary of an unoccupied restaurant; he later sought postconviction relief arguing that the 1997 decision in L.B. v. State, which held that a common pocketknife with a blade of four inches or less is not a weapon under section 790.001(13), should apply retroactively to his conviction. The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative and held that L.B. does not apply retroactively. The court reasoned that L.B. announced a new interpretation of the statute rather than a fundamental change in the law or a clarification that was always the correct construction, and therefore it did not meet Florida's standards for retroactive application to final convictions in collateral proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Florida Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Hayes v. State, interpreting the state's drug trafficking statute to exclude hydrocodone mixtures below certain dosage thresholds from Schedule I or II coverage, should be applied retroactively to David Klayman's final conviction and sentence for trafficking. The Court reviewed a district court's certification of the retroactivity question after the lower court had granted Klayman postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fiore v. White, the Court held that Hayes represented a clarification of the statute's original meaning rather than a change in law, so the ruling applies to prior cases; convictions lacking statutory authority constitute fundamental error that can be challenged even after finality. The decision remanded for further proceedings on the validity of Klayman's sentence while setting a two-year window for similar postconviction claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned John Hall's challenge to his consecutive five-year prison sentences for two third-degree felonies (cocaine possession and resisting arrest with violence) imposed under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code, which the trial court applied based on a sentencing worksheet showing a minimum of 49.8 months. Hall argued that the Code violated due process by allowing discriminatory and disparate sentencing and that his total term constituted cruel or unusual punishment compared to prior guidelines. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Code's constitutionality and approved the district court's decision. The court reasoned that the Code reasonably advances the legislative objective of punishment using objective factors like offense severity and criminal history without being arbitrary or oppressive. It further explained that the Eighth Amendment primarily addresses methods of punishment rather than sentence length, which is a legislative prerogative absent gross disproportionality, and Hall's sentences did not exceed statutory maxima.

criminal law

This case involved the Florida Supreme Court's review of a proposed constitutional amendment, initiated by petition, that would grant individuals charged with or convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses the right to elect state-approved treatment and rehabilitation instead of sentencing or incarceration for their first two offenses. The Attorney General sought an advisory opinion on the amendment's validity under the single-subject rule and requirements for ballot title and summary accuracy. The court approved the amendment for placement on the ballot, finding that it addressed a single subject related to drug offense treatment, that the ballot title and summary fairly informed voters of the amendment's chief purpose without being misleading, and that it did not engage in improper logrolling. The decision emphasized that the proposal's limitations, such as exclusions for violent crimes or other felonies in the same episode, were consistent with constitutional standards for citizen initiatives.

criminal lawelections

This case involves Joseph Ramirez's appeal of his third conviction and death sentence for the 1983 first-degree murder of a night courier in Miami. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the convictions and vacated the sentences. The core reasoning was that the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony based on an unreliable knife mark identification procedure claiming Ramirez's knife was the murder weapon to the exclusion of all others, consistent with prior reversals in the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether automobile insurers must pay personal injury protection (PIP) medical claims if they fail to obtain a physician's report within thirty days showing the bills are unreasonable, unrelated, or unnecessary. The Florida Supreme Court held that the insurers' failure to meet the thirty-day deadline does not bar them from later contesting the claims on those grounds. Instead, the statute only requires the insurers to pay statutory interest and attorney's fees if liability is ultimately established. The court reasoned from the text of section 627.736(4) that the deadline triggers penalties for delay but does not eliminate the insurer's substantive defenses to payment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved James D. Ford's convictions for sexual battery with a firearm, child abuse, and two counts of first-degree murder arising from the April 1997 killings of Greg and Kim Malnory on a remote sod farm in Charlotte County, Florida, where Ford also left their infant daughter unattended in a vehicle. Ford was sentenced to prison terms on the non-capital counts and death for the murders. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence of guilt based on DNA matches, witness observations, and physical evidence linking Ford to the crimes, and rejecting claims of trial error in the guilt and penalty phases. The court concluded that the trial proceedings complied with applicable legal standards and that the death sentences were proportionate.

criminal law

The consolidated cases addressed whether temporary closures of a motel and an apartment building ordered by city nuisance abatement boards under Florida statutes and local codes to address drug- and prostitution-related activities constituted compensable takings. Property owners sued for inverse condemnation after complete closures deprived them of all economic use for periods of six months to one year. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed conflicting district court decisions, one finding no compensation owed under Lucas because prohibited uses lacked common-law protection, and the other finding a total taking because the orders barred all uses rather than merely enjoining specific nuisances. The core analysis focused on whether the regulations prevented common-law nuisances inhering in the owners' title or instead effected a total deprivation of beneficial use requiring compensation.

propertycriminal law

In Major League Baseball v. Morsani, the plaintiffs sued Major League Baseball alleging tortious interference with their efforts to acquire a majority ownership interest in the Minnesota Twins franchise after they were induced to assign a minority interest and forgo litigation in exchange for promises of future ownership opportunities that never materialized. The complaint was filed after the applicable statute of limitations had run, prompting the defendants to seek summary judgment on that basis. The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that section 95.051, Florida Statutes, which enumerates grounds for tolling limitations periods, does not bar application of the separate doctrine of equitable estoppel to prevent a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations defense. The court reasoned that equitable estoppel has long been recognized in Florida case law as a means to avoid unfairness when a party's own conduct induces another to delay filing suit, and this doctrine operates independently of statutory tolling provisions.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Florida's sentencing guidelines require that credit for time served on one offense must be applied to sentences on other offenses after revocation of probation, even when the total sentence would not exceed the guidelines range. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed conflicting district court decisions interpreting its prior ruling in Tripp v. State and held that Tripp's credit requirement applies only to prevent trial courts from circumventing the guidelines through consecutive sentencing structures; it does not mandate credit in cases where the resulting sentence remains within the permitted range. The court therefore approved the Fourth District's decision in Hodgdon, which denied such credit, and disapproved the First District's contrary holding in Bailey. The reasoning emphasized that the guidelines treat offenses sentenced together on a single scoresheet as an interrelated unit, but Tripp was not intended to create an automatic windfall for defendants.

criminal lawprocedure