Philip J. Padovano

The case concerned whether Florida State Representative Rick Kriseman and his aide could invoke legislative privilege to avoid testifying in depositions about how they obtained and distributed confidential documents related to tax litigation involving Expedia and Florida counties. The underlying dispute involved challenges to tourist development tax assessments and claims of privilege waiver. The court held that the subpoenas must be quashed because a legislative privilege exists under common law, is implicit in the Florida Constitution's separation of powers, and covers the gathering and sharing of information on pending legislation. It reasoned that the requested testimony fell squarely within protected legislative functions and extended to staff, though the privilege is not absolute.

proceduretaxesbusiness & regulatory

In Bush v. State, the defendant was arrested on armed robbery and related felony charges and, at his first appearance hearing, was released on $60,000 bail after the prosecutor agreed to the amounts set by the local bail schedule. Later the same day, a different prosecutor moved for pretrial detention under section 907.041 before a circuit judge, who overruled the defense objection, heard additional evidence, and ordered the defendant held without bail. The District Court of Appeal granted the defendant's habeas corpus petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the state lacked good cause to modify the earlier bail determination because the second prosecutor's claim that the first prosecutor had made an error did not constitute a change in circumstances or new information unknown at the first hearing. The court reasoned that once a defendant is admitted to bail, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 requires good cause supported by evidence of changed circumstances before a modification can be granted.

criminal lawprocedure

In Austin v. State, the defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after a traffic stop in which cocaine was found in a rental car he was driving, which had been rented in his wife's name. The key issue on appeal was the trial court's decision to allow a Florida Highway Patrol trooper to testify, based on his training and experience, about how drug traffickers commonly use third-party rentals to distance themselves from contraband if stopped. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that such testimony about the general behavior patterns of drug offenders was inadmissible as substantive evidence of guilt because it invited the jury to convict by association rather than on the specific facts. The court further reasoned that the error was not harmless, as the testimony directly undermined the defense that the defendant lacked knowledge of the drugs and the state presented no other evidence of knowledge.

criminal law

This case involved an appeal by Austin Thomas Beahan from a trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop that led to charges of possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle. The majority reasoned that the defendant's slow driving, stops in a residential area, and U-turn over the curb, even in a known drug area, did not indicate impairment or justify the stop for driving under the influence. A dissenting judge argued that the erratic driving combined with the location provided sufficient basis for suspicion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved former Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne's appeal of an administrative order forfeiting his state retirement benefits after his federal guilty plea to conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The court affirmed the forfeiture, holding that Jenne's conviction qualified as a 'specified offense' under section 112.3173(2)(e)6., Florida Statutes (2001), because the admitted facts showed the crime was committed through misuse of his public office in dealings with a real estate developer and others, including undisclosed benefits like home demolition, loans, payments funneled through secretaries, and a company car. The reasoning emphasized the catch-all statutory provision covering any felony involving breach of public trust when committed in the described manner, distinguishing prior precedent and aligning with the state constitution's allowance for legislative definition of such forfeitures.

criminal law

The case involved an appeal by Roadrunner Construction, Inc. from a final administrative order by the Department of Financial Services imposing a $667,000 penalty for noncompliance with a workers' compensation order. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because both the original notice filed with the agency clerk and the duplicate filed with the appellate court clerk were untimely under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(c), as the 30-day deadline fell on December 24, 2009, which was not a legal holiday for the agency clerk's office. The core reasoning was that Article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution and section 59.081, Florida Statutes, make timely filing jurisdictional, and rule 9.420(f) defines holidays strictly without extending the deadline based on the appellate court's closure or other clerks' practices. The majority rejected arguments that the duplicate filing or ambiguous holiday definitions could cure the defect, while a dissent advocated construing the rules to allow adjudication on the merits.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal by an employer and its servicing agent from a workers’ compensation order directing them to provide an injured mechanic with a second medical opinion on treatment options for his knee and foot injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The judge of compensation claims found the second opinion medically necessary based on the treating orthopedist’s testimony that it could identify beneficial non-surgical treatments to help the worker return to his job. The appellate court summarily affirmed the order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), holding that the appellants’ initial brief failed to show any preliminary basis for reversal. The court reasoned that the finding of medical necessity was supported by competent substantial evidence and that the statutory definition of “medically necessary” does not limit the requirement to orthopedic necessity.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this automobile negligence case, plaintiff Dawn Claywell sued defendant Roger Gonzalez after a car accident, seeking damages for her injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment based on accord and satisfaction, arguing that the parties had formed a binding settlement agreement when the insurer tendered a check for the policy limits in response to the plaintiff's offer. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the insurer's inclusion of itself in the release form constituted a counteroffer rather than an acceptance, and the case proceeded to trial where the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff's offer was specific in requiring release only of the defendant and co-owners without indemnification language, and that the parties never reached an enforceable agreement because the insurer's proposal deviated from those terms. The court reasoned that it could not rewrite the offer or impose terms the plaintiff had expressly rejected.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Simons, the defendant faced criminal charges for theft of trade secrets and grand theft arising from a dispute with his former employer, which was also the subject of parallel civil litigation. The parties reached a written settlement agreement, approved by the trial court, under which the defendant would enter a pretrial intervention program on one charge, the other charges would be dismissed, he would pay restitution, and the victim would release civil claims. After the defendant paid the restitution, the victim and state refused to proceed with the pretrial intervention, prompting the defendant to seek enforcement of the agreement. The trial court granted enforcement and ultimately dismissed the charges when the state declined to nolle pros them. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court had authority to enforce the comprehensive settlement agreement as a remedy for the state's noncompliance, that the defendant had not breached the agreement, and that the state's general discretion over pretrial intervention did not render the overall agreement unenforceable or illusory.

criminal lawprocedure

In Abbey v. Patrick, the plaintiff sued Dr. Abbey for medical negligence causing blindness, and the doctor sought certiorari review of the trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff was entitled to both an additional sixty days after the notice terminating negotiations and the remaining thirty-seven days from the original limitations period, which would make the complaint timely. The court denied the petition, holding that the pretrial order did not qualify for certiorari because the plaintiff had received the required presuit screening process under the medical malpractice statutes and any error in calculating the limitations period was not a departure from essential requirements of law causing material injury that could not be corrected on appeal from final judgment.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for a wrongful death claim arising from a marine accident on a tugboat. After the insurer declined coverage, the insured filed a third-party complaint, prompting the insurer to move to compel arbitration under the policy's clause requiring disputes to be resolved in London. The trial court denied the motion, finding the arbitration clause conflicted with a service-of-suit provision and that Florida law barring arbitration of insurance disputes took precedence over federal law. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the clauses were reconcilable, the arbitration agreement was clear, and the Federal Arbitration Act along with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards required enforcement of the international arbitration agreement despite contrary state law.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involved Everest Re Group, Ltd., a Bermuda holding company, seeking certiorari review of a trial court order that would compel it to comply with an investigative demand for records or submit an affidavit denying possession of them. The demand arose from the Florida Department of Financial Services' investigation into the causes of insolvency for several insurance companies under liquidation, pursuant to Section 631.156, Florida Statutes. The court denied the petition, holding that the statute authorizes the Department to demand records from any agent, independent contractor, or entity that has exercised control over any segment of the insurer's affairs, without requiring the Department to first file charges or establish long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident witness in an investigation. The court reasoned that the statute contains no exemption for foreign corporations and that Everest Re's potential possession of relevant records or assets placed it within the statute's reach.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The plaintiffs filed an inverse condemnation action in Leon County against Levy County and two state agencies over property located in Levy County. Levy County moved to transfer venue to Levy County under section 47.122, Florida Statutes, after the agencies waived their home venue privilege; the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed, holding that state agencies may voluntarily waive the home venue privilege and that the case lacked any substantial connection to Leon County. The property, relevant records, and nearly all witnesses were in or near Levy County, making transfer appropriate for convenience. The matter was remanded with directions to grant the venue change.

propertyprocedure

In Curry v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions for attempted robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm, arguing that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing on the state's discovery violation. The state failed to disclose a tape-recorded statement from witness Sarah Engelby in which the defendant allegedly confessed to the crimes, despite listing her as a witness. The court held that this nondisclosure violated Florida discovery rules 3.220(b)(1)(B) and (C), with the state bearing constructive knowledge of information held by law enforcement and its own office. Because timely disclosure might have altered the defense strategy of challenging the victim's identification, the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing resulted in procedural prejudice that could not be deemed harmless. Accordingly, the convictions were reversed and a new trial ordered.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with sexual battery on a child under twelve and lewd or lascivious molestation against his six-year-old son, lewd or lascivious molestation against his ten-year-old daughter, and lewd or lascivious molestation against his eleven-year-old niece, with some charges relying on the children's out-of-court statements admitted as child hearsay. The court reversed the two convictions involving the son, holding that the evidence was insufficient because it consisted only of hearsay statements that the child did not adopt or confirm in his trial testimony. It affirmed the conviction involving the niece because that charge was supported by the victim's direct, firsthand testimony at trial. The core reasoning applied Florida law on the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, the limits of child hearsay under section 90.803(23), and the requirement that the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with affirmative evidence rather than recanted or equivocal statements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a workers' compensation appeal in which the claimant challenged a Judge of Compensation Claims' final order that approved the employer/carrier's unilateral deauthorization of a treating physician. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that the issue of whether such deauthorization could be retroactively approved was not preserved for appellate review. The court reasoned that when an issue first arises in the final order itself, the aggrieved party must file a motion for rehearing to bring it to the judge's attention, and the failure to do so bars consideration on appeal even in workers' compensation cases. A dissent argued that the record showed the issue had been presented and that the preservation rule should not apply to defeat a substantive claim in this context.

labor & employmentprocedure

Regina Young filed qualifying papers to run for the Florida House of Representatives, but the Secretary of State rejected them because the notary on her required financial disclosure form wrote "Florida" instead of the county "Duval." The trial court granted her petition for mandamus, ruling that she had substantially complied with the election laws, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed after reviewing the order de novo. The court examined section 99.061(5), Florida Statutes, which requires the disclosure as a sworn statement but does not specify any particular method of notarization or verification details such as the county, unlike the candidate oath form under section 99.021; it concluded that the statute controls over the form created by the Commission on Ethics and that substantial compliance is sufficient under precedent like Siegendorf v. Singletary. The court also confirmed that mandamus was the proper remedy to compel the Secretary's ministerial duty when papers meet the legal requirements.

electionsprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claimant, Mary Caldwell, who was injured at work and resisted her employer Wal-Mart's attempts to schedule an independent medical examination (IME) with Dr. Christopher Brown after she missed multiple appointments. The Judge of Compensation Claims issued an order on February 28, 2007, compelling her to attend the IME, which she did not challenge at the time; a later motion for reconsideration based on arguments about a prior medical report by Dr. Elizabeth Ciano was denied on July 25, 2007. Caldwell then petitioned the District Court of Appeal for certiorari review of the July order. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding it was untimely under Rule 9.100(c)(1) because the thirty-day filing deadline ran from the original February order and a motion for reconsideration did not extend that jurisdictional period.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this dissolution of marriage case, Angela Simmons appealed the trial court's final judgment dividing the parties' assets and liabilities, arguing that the court failed to make required statutory findings of fact regarding the identification and valuation of marital assets under section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, affirmed the judgment. The majority reasoned that the parties had not presented evidence of value for many assets, so the trial court had no basis to make findings, and that Simmons had waived the issue by failing to raise it in her motion for rehearing, preventing preservation for appeal. A dissent argued that the marital home should have been treated as a marital asset due to the statutory presumption for property held as tenants by the entireties but agreed with the majority on the valuation findings issue.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case was an appeal from a trial court's denial of class certification in a lawsuit brought by a customer against South Lubes, Inc. (operating as Jiffy Lube) and its president under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging that an added environmental fee on oil changes was deceptive because it appeared to be either a tax or a pass-through expense. The trial court denied certification after finding that the plaintiff failed to meet requirements for commonality, adequacy, numerosity, and typicality under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220, primarily due to individualized differences among customers regarding whether they knew the fee was not a tax. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling and declining to consider an unpreserved alternative theory about the fee's presentation as a direct cost. The core reasoning centered on the trial court's discretion in class actions and the impact of varying customer understandings on the prerequisites for certification.

business & regulatoryprocedure