Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a prisoner under sentence of death, appealed the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Defendant asserted a destruction of evidence claim and Brady v. Maryland claim. The court affirmed the circuit court's denial of postconviction relief. Further, the court rejected the State's cross-appeal and affirmed the determination of the postconviction court that defendant's second claim satisfied the due diligence component of Rule 3.851(d)(2)(A). No motion for rehearing would be entertained by this court. The mandate should issue immediately. Defendant's request for a stay of execution was denied. View "Waterhouse v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for first degree murder and his sentence of death. Defendant claimed that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on finding the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) aggravator for the murder of the victim and that defendant's death sentence was disproportionate. The court held that the jury instruction on the aggravator was not error when the victim was attending a party, defendant stormed in and demanded money with the threat of firing his AK-47, shot the victim multiple times, and the victim eventually died from the gunshot wounds. The court also concluded that the trial court did not err in finding the HAC aggravator because it was supported by competent substantial evidence. Considering the circumstances, the aggravating and mitigating factors weighed by the trial court, and other cases with similar facts, the court concluded that defendant's death sentence was proportionate. Further, the competent substantial evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed. View "Hall v. State" on Justia Law

The North Port Road and Drainage District (NPRDD), a municipal dependent special district wholly contained within the City of North Port, levied non-ad valorem special assessments against nine parcels of real property owned by West Villages Improvement District, an independent special district of the State of Florida. The Second District held that NPRDD could not lawfully impose the special assessments on West Villages' real property without statutory authority. The court affirmed, but on the basis that NPRDD's home rule power under the Florida Constitution did not reach as far as it argued. Accordingly, because there was no way for West Villages to lawfully pay the special assessments, NPRDD's assessments fell within the limitations on home rule powers set forth in section 166.021(3), Florida Statutes. View "North Port Road And Drainage Dist., etc. v. West Villages Improvement Dist., etc." on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between the parties when Auto-Owners issued a performance bond in connection with the work of Southeast pursuant to a contract which provided that Southeast would build a floating dock for Rivermar. The certified question at issue was whether Florida's offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes, constituted substantive law and therefore was inapplicable in instances where parties to a contract have agreed to be bound by the substantive law of another forum. The court held that section 768.79 created a substantive right to costs and attorney's fees upon the satisfaction of certain conditions. Accordingly, under a conflict of law analysis, when parties have agreed to be bound by the substantive law of another jurisdiction, section 768.79 simply did not apply. As a result, the court answered the certified question and by doing so, the two remaining certified questions were rendered moot. View "Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., et al. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Michael Warfel filed a sinkhole claim with Universal Insurance Company, with whom he had an all-risks homeowners insurance policy that covered sinkhole claims. Universal relied on a report by an outside firm, which determined that the damage was caused by factors that were excluded from coverage under the policy, to deny the claim. Warfel subsequently filed an action against Universal for breach of contract, seeking the recovery of insurance benefits for the loss caused by damage to his home. The trial court granted Universal's motion to apply Fla. Stat. 90.304 to the burden shifting presumption articulated in Fla. Stat. 627.7073(1)(c). The jury returned a verdict in favor of Universal. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the trial court misapplied the presumption at work in this case and gave the jury an instruction improperly shifting the burden of proof. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the language of section 627.7073(1)(c) does not create a presumption affecting the burden of proof under section 90.304 nor does the language create a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence under Fla. Stat. 90.303. View "Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Warfel" on Justia Law

Raymond Bright was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to death for the murders. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) sufficient evidence existed in the record for the jury to convict Bright of first-degree premeditated murder; (2) the prosecutor did not improperly comment on Bright's right to remain silent, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bright's motion for a mistrial; (3) the trial court erred when it found and weighed as two separate aggravating circumstances Bright's prior felony conviction, but the improper double finding of the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance constituted harmless error; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding and affording the aggravating circumstance that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, great weight; and (5) the sentences imposed by the trial court were proportionate. View "Bright v. State" on Justia Law

This case arose when petitioner's home was damaged in a hurricane and Florida Preferred was the insurer of the home. After petitioner sued Florida Preferred over a dispute regarding the covered loss and Florida Preferred subsequently became insolvent, petitioner filed a motion to substitute FIGA as the defendant. At issue was whether FIGA could be required to pay petitioner's attorney's fees and costs incurred in the litigation with Florida Preferred. Because petitioner's attorney's fee award pursuant to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, was not within the coverage of her insurance policy, it was not a covered claim under section 631.54(3), Florida Statutes, that FIGA must pay. Therefore, the court approved the decision of the Second District. View "Petty, et al. v. Florida Ins. Guaranty Assoc." on Justia Law

Petitioner sued respondent under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine after sustaining injuries caused by respondent's farm tractor. Petitioner sought review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal, which held that a farm tractor was not a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law. In so holding, the district court rejected petitioner's contentions that, because a farm tractor was a motor vehicle and because it was of such size and character as to be peculiarly dangerous in its operation, a farm tractor was a dangerous instrumentality. The court held that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine could apply to motor vehicles other than automobiles that have the ability to cause serious injury, and Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, where the court concluded that the weight, speed, and mechanism of an automobile or motor vehicle made it particularly dangerous when in operation. Therefore, a farm tractor was a dangerous instrumentality and the First District's decision was quashed. View "Rippy v. Shepard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Dr. Mary Jane Benson, Dr. George C. Rees, and West Florida Hospital, alleging that the doctors were negligent in rendering medical care to her, which resulted in excessive liver damage. Plaintiff's claim against the hospital were based on both vicarious liability for Dr. Benson's negligence, as well as liability for the direct negligence in granting medical staff privileges to both doctors, which led to the medical care and procedures performed. The court approved the First District's decision because it held that the trial court correctly ordered the disclosure of a blank application for medical staff privileges. Section 381.0287(b)1 impermissible attempted to limit the disclosure requirements of article X, section 25 of the Florida Constitution (Amendment 7), and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA), 42 U.S.C. 11101 et seq., did not preempt Amendment 7. In accordance with the court's decision, the court disapproved of the decision of the Fourth District in Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc. v. Taitel and its contrary holding that a blank form used by a hospital for nurse credentialing was confidential and protected by disclosure. View "West Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc., etc. v. See, et al." on Justia Law

In this case, the court considered an appeal from a final circuit court judgment validating revenue bonds proposed to be issued by the county to finance a beach restoration project. The court held that appellants erroneously contended that in adopting the Assessment Resolution, the county failed to comply with the requirements of its MSBU Ordinance, and as a result, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction; appellants contention, that the county failed to demonstrate that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would issue the permits at issue for the beach renourishment project and thus the circuit court erred in validating the bonds, was rejected; beach and shore preservation projects confronted a critical threat to the welfare of the people of the state and those special benefits that flow incidentally to certain properties because of the nature of the project did not diminish its predominately public nature; competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that the county's methodology was fair and reasonable; and regardless of how much sand was added outside the boundaries of the MSBU, the special benefits were nevertheless provided. Accordingly, the court affirmed the circuit court's final judgment of validation of the bonds. View "Donovan, et al. v. Okaloosa County, FL, etc., et al." on Justia Law