Search

The article explores the proceedings supplementary statute F.S. Section 56.29 in Florida and its application to a case by a court compelling a judgment debtor to transfer foreign property to the state. Topics discussed include the summary of Section 56.29 on the procedure for proceedings supplementary, an analysis of the case of Schanck v. Gayhart, and a court's authority to compel a judgment debtor to transfer foreign assets in the case Young Bock Shim et al. v. Frederick F. Buechel et al.

The article discusses whether the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case Durham v. Ocwen should affect the interpretation of assignee under Florida's version of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Topics include facts of the Durham case, commentary and decision on the case, and interpretation of "assignment" under Florida's Article 9 of the UCC.

The article provide advice to plan administrators in Florida on protecting retirement fund assets. Topics discussed include the provisions under the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the increase in the incidence of abandonment of family members and divorce during the 1970s, and costs associated with optional forms of benefits and survivor rights which became the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) math needed to divide benefits pursuant to divorce.

The article examines court decisions on broad contractual prevailing party attorneys' fees provisions when determining whether a party can recover fees for litigating the reasonableness of the amount of fees in Florida. Topics discussed include the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal to allow recovery of attorneys' fees, decision of the First District to award prevailing party attorneys' fees to an association, and importance of the appropriate contractual language in such cases.

A June 2020 decision issued by the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal could have far-reaching implications for the market valuation of hotel properties throughout the United States. The appellate court upheld a lower court's decision rejecting the valuation methodology, the Rushmore Approach, utilized by the Orange County Property Appraiser in its assessment of the Disney Yacht & Beach Club Resort. It was 1978 when Rushmore posited the first accepted methodology for separating income attributable to business (intangible asset) from income attributable to personal property from the entire income stream of a lodging facility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific research into the experience of juveniles in detention has recently had an impact on court rulings. In the cases of Roper v Simmons (2005), Graham v Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012) judges used research in juvenile cognitive development to inform their rulings. Though current research covers different aspects of juvenile experience in the criminal justice system, few studies approach the subject holistically or examine the inherent symbiotic relationship between juvenile detention policy and juvenile incarceration. This literature review seeks to present information on and encourage further examination of this relationship. For the purposes of the review, the terms "youth," "juvenile," "adolescent/s," "young people," and "under age" all refer to people between the ages of 13 and 18. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the tipsy coachman rule that is used by appellate courts to affirm a trial court's decision. Topics discussed include cases in Florida where the tipsy coachman rule was employed, the legal issues presented by this rule for the appellate practitioner, and the application of the tipsy coachman rule when the issue involves the trial judge's discretion.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2017 case Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami which deals with America's Fair Housing Act (FHA), legal standing to file a lawsuit, and a proximate cause legal doctrine. According to the article, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that cities can be aggrieved persons under the FHA. Foreclosures in Miami, Florida are examined, along with an unjust enrichment claim and minority neighborhoods in Florida.

The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that defendants are entitled to effective assistance of counsel. Despite this, many research studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that defense counsel, particularly appointed counsel, struggles to provide effective assistance, especially with regard to case outcomes. These studies suggest that having appointed counsel negatively affects case outcomes, such as conviction and sentencing, in that those with appointed counsel are more likely to be convicted and/or sentenced to longer incarceration terms. Previous research has largely ignored earlier stages of a case and the effect of type of counsel on these earlier case outcomes. The current study examines the effect of counsel—public defender versus retained—on bail decisions in Florida. Previous research has indicated that bail decisions have an effect on the outcome of a case, so the importance of bail decisions cannot be overlooked. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides practical advice for consumers on how to collect monetary damages from contractors under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund (Fund), and it mentions the legislative purpose of the Fund, as well as the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). According to the article, the Fund covers construction contracts for residential work with certain contractors licensed by the CILB. Civil final judgments and arbitration funds are assessed.

The article discusses the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in the 1996 case Allen's Creek Properties Inc. v. City of Clearwater which deals with the legality of municipalities compelling county property owners in Florida to annex into cities in order to obtain a municipality's utilities. Local government laws in Florida are addressed, along with judicial interference, the efforts to control municipal growth, and the legal rights and obligations of city governments and landowners.

The article discusses the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in the 2015 case Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp. which deals with product design defects and the renewal of a strict product liability consumer expectations test in Florida. A negligence-based risk/benefit test is addressed, along with the "Restatement (Second) of Torts" and "Restatement (Third) Torts: Products Liability" treatises. Affirmative defenses are examined, along with the 1976 products liability case West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

The article discusses recent unadopted rule challenge decisions in Florida. Topics covered include the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act pertaining to unadopted rules, the steps that a person can take to challenge an agency statement alleged to be an unadopted rule, and a method established by the Florida Legislature by which disputes in rule identification may be resolved.

The article discusses homestead law in Florida discusses several cases related the same. It mentions the decision of the Florida Supreme Court on the Oliver v. Snowden case in which the court extent of homestead by quantity and not value. It also mentions homestead and the Elective Share, value the home and property separately, and Homestead and the Intestate Estate.

The article discusses the Florida's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) article 4A that allows bank deposits and collections and the rights and duties of parties to a transaction and mentions the need to permit parties to modify article 4A's notice period by agreement. It discusses court decision on several cases Florida cases including the Regatos v. North Fork Bank related to UCC; and the Priority Staffing, Inc. v. Regions Bank.

The article discusses Florida labor and employment law in relation to the interpretation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, focusing on legal efforts to prohibit discrimination in employment in Florida and the U.S. The national anti-discrimination law known as Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 is mentioned, along with case law, precedent, and several rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Pregnancy discrimination and disability-related discrimination claims are examined.

The article discusses Florida appellate procedure in relation to remedies and partial final judgments as of December 2013, focusing on appellate jurisdiction, judicial economy, and the authority of appellate courts to review partial final judgments prior to the conclusion of litigation under Rule 9.110(k) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Florida courts and final judgments are mentioned, along with summary judgments and the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The article focuses on amicus briefs and how they impact the decision making process in courts. Topics include the occurrence of amicus brief filings in Florida appellate courts, and writing strategies for briefs. Information is provided on disclosure requirements, how briefs can assist the court, and the effectiveness of briefs.

The article focuses on stay of judgments in Florida state court proceedings. Information is provided on how all final orders in state court can be stayed in cases of pending appellate review. The article stresses the importance of filing a written motion or complete an ore tenus motion in front of a presiding judge immediately post judgment.

The article discusses the court case D'Amario v. Ford, wherein the court decided that the jury should be permitted to apportion fault to each entity that caused the plaintiff's injuries, in consistent with F.S. 768.81. It presents the public policy and economic considerations that demonstrate the immediate need for judicial and legislative action to eliminate D'Amario's adverse consequences from the tort law of Florida. It also analyzes the judicial legacy of the D'Amario decision.

The article discusses the continuing confusion regarding the nature of permissible expert legal testimony in Florida. It includes relevant issues such as the abrogation of the ultimate issue rule or the common law of evidence, conflicting Florida precedent, and a conclusion. The various court decisions are also discussed in this issue.

The article discusses the Goble versus (v.) Frohman and ThyssenKrupp Corp. v. Lasky case in Florida, which applies §786.76 rule to handle collateral issues. It states that in Goble case, Florida Supreme Court rules a post-verdict after finding that contractual discounts under health maintenance organization (HMO) is classified as collateral resource. Meanwhile, in ThyssenKrupp case the court rules that Medicare is not a collateral source and thus can be use as evidence on trials.

The article discusses the significance on the preservation of record on court appeals that requires more specific and timely objections. It notes that records are important in the crucial aspect of the litigation process because an appellate court will assume that the court's decision is right and just. Methods by which party can attempt to overcome the lack of record evidence are provided by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure in obtaining appellate review on erroneous court decisions.

The article focuses on the statutory causes of action under F.S. Chapter 378 and not on exhaustive consideration of a cause of action under negligence in Florida. It mentions the case of Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC wherein the majority relied on the definition of damages that allows fishermen to sue the company for releases of pollutants. Moreover, the court decision has paved way in pursuing legal actions in conflict with statutory public purposes on natural resources protection.

The article discusses various 2009 special education rulings in the U.S. to provide legal understanding for the lawyers of parents, administrators, and school districts. It relates on how schools must treat the visitation rights of parents or an independent evaluator based on the case of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida. Moreover, the ruling over the case involving the New York City Department of Education provides insights on how a child can be classified as a socially maladjusted.

The article discusses the material difference in Florida Contract Law and discusses several cases regarding the same. It discusses cases including the Mazzei v. Money Store related to a national breach of contract class action; court decision in the Hostway Services v. HWAY FTL and the Rollins, Inc. v. Butland regarding materiality requirement. It also mentions that the Florida Supreme Court should resolve whether materiality is a required element of a breach of contract claim for damages.

The article discusses the system of offer of judgment rules in Florida and Puerto Rico. It presents U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics data including the number of cases per year from 1997 to 2006 and percentages of civil type cases. It explores civil procedure in Puerto Rico and Florida, court settlements, economic analysis and motivation of parties. It also notes purpose of civil procedure rules, the time-line of a personal injury case, the American offer of judgment rule and the Florida and Puerto Rico Rule Structure.

The article focuses on the common law called certiorari that is issued by a higher court to its inferior jurisdiction requesting for case records needed to review legal judgments in Florida. It notes that the certiorari review started due to the need of the judicial power to review erroneous trial court orders for the good of the society. It notes that the state's Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction was eliminated in 1980 due to constitutional amendment.

The article discusses the application of equitable subrogation doctrine in the context of mortgage liens in Florida. Accordingly, the doctrine emplies that the person who pays the mortgage obligations of other would have a beneficial owner of the original obligations. In this regard, several decided cases of the court, which have different applications of the equitable subrogation principle are presented.

The article looks into the influence of Delaware corporate law decisions on Florida courts. It warns that the prominence of Delaware courts should not lead to an overly submissive attitude or one that gives undue influence to Delaware decisions. It cites considerable differences between the two states that ought to provide caution to Florida courts. Related issues are further discussed.

The article reports on the decision of the Supreme Court on the cases Strand v. Escambia County, Bay County v. Town of Cedar Grove and City of Parker v. State in Florida. The bright-line principle applied in the landmark case of State v. Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency was upheld. The court ruled that a local government is able to issue tax-increment financing bonds under the statutory authority of the Community Redevelopment Act and under the authority of a local government's home rule powers.

The article presents practical advice for Florida attorneys on various aspects of appellate procedure costs as of 2015, and it mentions which parties may recover appellate costs, as well as the process for recovering such expenses under Rule 9.400 of Florida's appellate rules. Attorneys' fees are mentioned, along with several Florida legal cases which deals with issues such as the taxing of appellate costs. Motions and challenges to trial court rulings are also examined.

The article discusses the steps that must be taken by attorneys and their clients following the release of an appellate opinion in state court civil cases in Florida. According to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, post-opinion motions must be filed within 15 days of an order or within such other period declared by the court. It further notes that the request must be followed by a statement that a written opinion will provide a legitimate basis for Supreme Court review.

The article explores the different types of jurisdiction employed by Florida courts to establish a valid judgment. It offers a comparison between procedural jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction by setting examples of legal cases. It also describes the jurisdiction called case jurisdiction, which involves the power of the court over a particular case that is within its subject matter jurisdiction.

The article analyzes the changes in the Florida spoliation law based on the Florida Supreme Court verdict on Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on July 7, 2005. According to the judgments, there is no longer a first-party damage cause of action for destruction of evidence. This is a reversal of the two decades long practice of Florida precedent. The Supreme Court's rationale behind the verdict is that the sanctions, which can effect an adverse inference are sufficient to remedy past destruction of evidences and deter future spoliation by defendants.

The article focuses on the extents of cross-appeals in civil cases in Florida. A cross-appeal is mandatory if the judgment was less than wholly favorable and there is a plan to seek additional or different relief on appeal. However, a conditional cross-appeal might be prudent even if the judgment is wholly favorable.

The article offers a look at the ruling of a trial court in Florida regarding the appropriateness of issuing search warrant on the house of James Rabb, a grower of cannabis, through a dog sniff. The majority held that the dog sniff was unjust because the information found by the dog was inside the home and was based on the Fourth Amendment, it warrant of constitutional protection. But, the dissent argued that the decision was irrelevant because the site where the dog detected the cannabis was constitutionally unprotected.

The article discusses the six-year court battle over Florida's Opportunity Scholarship program which provided vouchers to children in failing public schools. It presents the history of school choice and describes how Florida became the national leader in the field. It also discusses how the Florida Supreme Court ignored bedrock principles of constitutional interpretation, record evidence, and decisions from other courts in striking down the Opportunity Scholarships program.

Discusses the law declaring and error correcting roles of the Florida Supreme Court. Overview of the role of the Supreme Court under the Florida Constitution; Performance of the error correcting function by the court in reviewing the decisions made on the cases Lake v. Lake and Foley v. Weaver Drugs Inc.; Views of Justice Arthur England on the ruling on the suits.

This article presents information on the drafting and analysis of joint proposals for settlement. Drafting of a joint proposal for settlement in Florida needs be done strictly according to F.S., 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. In a judgment pronounced in the case of "Lamb v. Matetzschk," the practicalities of applying Rule 1.442 were addressed by the Chief Justice. The statutory language of the rule only requires that a proposal be in writing, name the offeror and offeree and state the amount of the offer. It does not require apportionment or differentiation, if the two terms can be defined as expressing different requirements.

This article focuses on the rule "Fla. R. Civil. P. 1.525 related to attorneys' fees and costs. In a judgment pronounced in the year 2000, the Florida Supreme Court adopted this rule. The Court stated that any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees or both shall serve a motion within 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court noted that this rule was meant to bring uniformity to an area of the law which has been governed by judges' discretionary "reasonableness" inquiries.

This article focuses on the legal aspects of domicile planning in the United States. Although there is no universally adopted definition of domicile, the states share a general understanding of what domicile means. In case of Florida legal residence or domicile is the place where a person has fixed an abode with the present intention of making it his or her permanent home. According to a recently pronounced judgment by a Massachusetts court, domicile is a place where a person has his home, that is, his dwelling place and the center of his domestic, social and civil life.

The article focuses on the case before the Court of Appeal of Florida in the Second Circuit, involving the Seminole Tribe of Florida, a federally recognized Indian tribe, as petitioner and Angela McCor as defendant. The Seminole Tribe of Florida has sought review of discretionary writ of the trial court's order denying the Tribe's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Tribe's motion was based on the assertion that the Tribe was, by virtue of its status as a federally recognized Indian tribe, is immune from the suit for negligence brought by Angela McCor for injuries she allegedly suffered at the gaming facility located on the Tribe's Tampa reservation. Because the trial court's denial of the Tribe's motion was a clear departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in injury to the Tribe that cannot be remedied on appeal, the grant of petition is given to the tribe. McCor's action against the Tribe, which was initiated in August 2002--seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained from being struck by a chair while she was at the Tribe's gaming facility in Tampa, Florida.