Charles J. Kahn

The case involved a negligence lawsuit brought by Adam Garner against Buford Langford after Garner struck Langford's horse with his car in 2003, resulting in Garner's paralysis and eventual death; Garner's mother was substituted as plaintiff. After multiple delays, including the sudden illness of plaintiff's counsel and difficulties serving key witnesses such as the investigating trooper and a veterinarian, the trial court denied several motions for continuance despite both parties' agreement and the short preparation time for substitute counsel. The jury found for the defendant, leading to a final judgment in his favor. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the denial of a continuance constituted an abuse of discretion because it created an injustice under the unique circumstances of counsel's unavailability and witness issues, outweighing the interest in resolving the aged case.

proceduretorts & liability

In Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, the former husband moved to dissolve a permanent injunction against domestic violence that had been issued in favor of the former wife based on prior graphic testimony of abuse. The trial court granted the dissolution motion without elaboration. On appeal, the court reversed, ruling that the husband had not met his burden to show changed circumstances making the injunction no longer necessary under Florida Statutes section 741.30 and related case law requiring evidence that the underlying scenario no longer exists. The appellate court determined that the original justification for the injunction remained valid and the wife maintained a reasonable continuing fear, leading to remand with instructions to reinstate the injunction.

family law

The case involved a paternity and child support action brought by the mother, in which the Department of Revenue had intervened because she received public assistance. The trial court established paternity, ordered joint custody, waived child support as de minimis, and directed DOR to split the mother's TANF benefits equally with the father. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to determine TANF eligibility or allocate benefits, as those determinations are reserved to the Department of Children and Families under chapter 414, Florida Statutes. The order also violated due process because DOR received no notice or opportunity to be heard on the public assistance issue, and it conflicted with statutory rules barring shared-custody parents from both qualifying for benefits.

family lawprocedure

This case involved the dissolution of marriage between Marshall Ross Jones, Jr. and Stephanie L. Jones, focusing on the equitable distribution of assets and liabilities. The central dispute concerned a promissory note for $225,000 that the husband executed in favor of his mother, which the wife claimed was inauthentic or unenforceable. The trial court classified the note as a marital obligation, valued it at $112,500 for distribution purposes, accounted for the husband's dissipation of marital assets, and denied the wife's request for attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed these rulings, holding that the note's actual value fell between its face amount and zero due to conflicting evidence about its creation, timing, and enforceability, and that the trial court acted within its discretion to achieve an equitable result under Florida statutes.

family lawproperty

In this medical malpractice case, petitioners Michael and Stephanie Baldwin sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying their motion to compel non-party Shands Teaching Hospital to produce its risk management incident report and peer review form concerning an adverse medical incident during Mr. Baldwin's intubation for an appendectomy. The court granted the petition, quashed the order, and directed Shands to produce all records of adverse medical incidents. The core reasoning was that Amendment 7 to the Florida Constitution grants patients access to any records made or received by a health care facility relating to an adverse medical incident—which is defined to include any act, neglect, or default that caused or could have caused injury to a patient and encompasses incidents reviewed by risk management or peer review committees—and the hospital could not avoid disclosure by unilaterally determining that the incident did not involve negligence.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Roy Howard Middleton, Jr., who was convicted of second-degree murder after his trial counsel failed to advise him of the option to move for a mistrial when a juror was removed during deliberations due to an undisclosed felony conviction. Middleton filed a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. The trial court found that Middleton would have sought a mistrial if informed but denied relief, concluding he had not shown a different outcome at a new trial was likely. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed, holding that the prejudice prong of Strickland was satisfied because counsel's deficiency denied Middleton a significant procedural right to a properly constituted jury, requiring the parties to be returned to their pre-trial positions without needing to demonstrate acquittal on retrial. The court noted that double jeopardy would not bar potential retrial on the original first-degree murder charge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dr. Stephen L. Kaplan challenging an emergency suspension order issued by the Florida Department of Health that suspended his medical license. The court reviewed the order under section 120.60(6) of the Florida Statutes, which requires specific facts demonstrating an immediate danger to public health, safety, or welfare. The Department’s order lacked any particularized allegations of harm or facts showing the conduct was likely to continue or that the suspension was necessary, as the complained-of conduct involved one patient three years earlier with no alleged harm. Consequently, the court quashed the emergency suspension order for failing to meet the statutory standards.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved a medical negligence lawsuit filed by the Rhodins against Baptist Medical Center alleging that the hospital's nursing staff failed to properly assess and communicate about a patient's worsening condition, leading to permanent injury. Baptist moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to meet the presuit investigation and notice requirements of Florida Statutes chapter 766, specifically challenging the qualifications and sufficiency of the plaintiffs' expert affidavit from a registered nurse. The trial court denied the motion, and Baptist sought certiorari review. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that the affidavit complied with statutory requirements for a medical expert, including disclosure of opinions on causation and the expert's engagement in the practice of nursing, and that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Stephen DeLuca and investigate a report of armed men based on a detailed 911 call from a caller who identified himself as victim Cecil Brown. The trial court granted DeLuca's motion to suppress evidence of cocaine found during the detention, characterizing the caller as an anonymous tipster whose information was not independently corroborated. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officers' actions were justified under the totality of circumstances known at the time the detention began, including the specific, verifiable details provided in the BOLO dispatch about the vehicle, suspects, and location. The court reasoned that facts learned afterward, such as the inability to recontact the caller, could not retroactively undermine the initial reasonable suspicion supporting the stop.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim filed by a claimant who suffered a compensable eye injury while working as a referee at Florida International University. The Judge of Compensation Claims denied all benefits on the ground that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations under section 440.19, Florida Statutes. The appellate court reversed, holding that the employer/carrier was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense. The core reasoning was that the employer/carrier failed to fulfill its duty to obtain a date of maximum medical improvement and a permanent impairment rating from the authorized treating physicians, which prevented the claimant from receiving impairment benefits that would have tolled the limitations period and misled her to her detriment.

labor & employment

In Harris v. State, Dorothy Harris appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess hydrocodone after her brother testified at trial that she provided a fraudulent prescription and that she had an outstanding warrant for her arrest. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge abused its discretion by admitting testimony about the warrant and allowing a question implying Harris was previously suspected of prescription fraud, both of which constituted inadmissible evidence of other crimes or bad acts under Florida law. The majority rejected the State's invited-error argument and found the errors required reversal despite the lack of a curative instruction. The opinion focused on evidentiary standards prohibiting propensity evidence in criminal trials.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nicholson v. State, the appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in hydrocodone, possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia after deputies found the items in a mobile home he shared with his brother during a search prompted by a 911 call. The trial court had denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and imposed sentences on all counts, including one that the State had nolle prossed. The appellate court reversed the trafficking conviction on Count One, holding that the State failed to present independent evidence of the appellant's knowledge and ability to control the hidden contraband in jointly occupied premises, requiring discharge on that count. It vacated the judgment on the nolle prossed count, affirmed the remaining convictions, and concluded that the "and/or" jury instructions did not constitute fundamental error when viewed in the full context of the trial record, identical evidence against both co-defendants, and standard instructions on separate verdicts.

criminal lawprocedure

In Ross v. State, the appellant challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), seeking additional credit for 82 days of jail time served prior to sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the motion was facially insufficient. The core reasoning was that the appellant did not allege that the court records themselves demonstrate an entitlement to relief on their face and instead appeared to rely on extraneous jail records.

criminal lawprocedure

Jonathan Clowers was convicted of first-degree murder after shooting the mother of his child multiple times in the head during an argument in a Jacksonville parking lot. On appeal he raised four claims: that the trial court erred by appointing only one expert to evaluate his competency to stand trial, that the State failed to prove premeditation, that the prosecutor made improper closing remarks, and that the court improperly imposed a mandatory life sentence under the 10-20-life firearm enhancement statute. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence in full. It held that the competency claim was unpreserved because defense counsel ultimately invited the single-expert appointment, that the evidence of premeditation was sufficient, that the prosecutor's remarks were a fair comment on the evidence, and that the life sentence was legally authorized for the capital felony regardless of the enhancement citation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Evans v. State, a jury convicted Michael Jay Evans of possessing two controlled substances and drug paraphernalia after officers executing a search warrant found pills and a smoking device inside a duffel bag in his master bedroom. Evans moved for judgment of acquittal on the possession counts, arguing insufficient evidence of constructive possession in a jointly occupied residence. The court reversed the convictions for the controlled substances, finding that the presence of Evans's passport in the bag did not provide independent proof of his knowledge or control over the hidden contraband, as required when multiple people had access to the premises. It affirmed the paraphernalia conviction, for which Evans received time served.

criminal law

The case involved a challenge to a DUI conviction where the petitioner sought to suppress evidence from his detention and arrest on grounds that no admissible proof showed he was driving the vehicle involved in a crash. The county court initially granted the motion to suppress due to the accident report privilege and lack of evidence on the driver's identity, but reversed itself on rehearing based on a mistaken recollection of the trooper's testimony; the circuit court then affirmed the conviction. The appellate court granted certiorari, quashed the circuit court's decision, and ordered the petitioner's discharge, reasoning that no competent substantial evidence established the petitioner as the driver and that the lower courts departed from essential legal requirements by relying on inadmissible information.

criminal lawprocedure

In Reynolds v. CSR Rinker Transport, claimant Timothy Reynolds sought workers' compensation benefits after suffering an injury while operating his tractor under a Vehicle Lease Agreement with Rinker Transportation Corp. The Judge of Compensation Claims denied the claim, concluding that Reynolds was an owner-operator excluded from coverage under section 440.02(14)(d)4., Florida Statutes (2000). The appellate court reversed, ruling that the agreement's requirement for Rinker to furnish and pay for bodily injury, property damage liability, and cargo insurance meant Reynolds did not furnish all costs incidental to performance of the contract, so he failed to satisfy one of the statute's conjunctive requirements for owner-operator status. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine Reynolds' entitlement to benefits.

labor & employment

In this personal injury lawsuit stemming from a rear-end collision between commercial trucks, a jury awarded the plaintiff truck driver $495,246.41 in damages after the defendants rejected a $400,000 settlement proposal. The trial court awarded the plaintiff prevailing-party costs and, under Florida's offer-of-judgment statute, also granted attorney's fees and costs because the judgment exceeded the proposal by more than 25 percent. On appeal the court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings and most cost determinations but reversed the attorney's fees award, holding that only costs incurred before the proposal could be counted toward the statutory threshold and that the adjusted judgment fell short of $500,000; it also ordered a $2,781.05 reduction in the costs award to match the amount actually requested.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this dissolution of marriage case, the wife appealed the trial court's final judgment, arguing that the Bear Run property she owned before the marriage should have been treated as non-marital for equitable distribution purposes, while also challenging the handling of $63,000 in the distribution plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the $63,000 but reversed its classification of the Bear Run property and its sale proceeds as entirely marital. The court reasoned that the property was acquired prior to the marriage and thus presumptively non-marital under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, with insufficient evidence that rental income or sale proceeds were commingled with marital funds or that the husband's repairs enhanced the property's value enough to convert the entire asset. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine any marital portion of the property based on proper findings.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether a 2007 amendment to Florida Statutes section 624.319 could retroactively limit the confidentiality of work papers that a viatical settlement provider (Coventry) had submitted to the Office of Insurance Regulation before the amendment's effective date, and whether certain documents qualified as protected trade secrets. Coventry sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent public disclosure after receiving public records requests, but the trial court denied the claims. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to properly analyze impairment of vested property rights under the pre-amendment confidentiality rules and erred in deeming the trade-secrets claim moot, because the documents retained their protected status and the issue could recur with future requests.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure