B. K. Roberts

This case concerned a Florida physician charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance who withdrew a not-guilty plea and entered a nolo contendere plea. The trial court, over the state's objection, held an evidentiary hearing, received evidence and witness testimony, and then entered an order finding the defendant not guilty and discharging him. The district court reversed, ruling that a trial judge has no authority to adjudicate guilt or innocence after accepting a nolo contendere plea. On review by certiorari, the Florida Supreme Court examined whether the trial court's actions barred further prosecution under double-jeopardy principles, emphasizing that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 requires a factual-basis inquiry only for guilty pleas and not for nolo contendere pleas, which admit the facts for purposes of the prosecution without contesting them.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Dalton Williams's conviction on one count of buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen heifers under Section 811.16, Florida Statutes (1973), after the trial court dismissed two counts and the jury acquitted on six others. Williams contended on appeal that he was entitled to the reduced misdemeanor punishment available under Section 811.17 when the underlying theft was not a felony and restitution was made, but the verdict's failure to specify property value made that determination impossible. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, prompting Supreme Court review due to conflict with Vaughn v. State and other precedents. The Court examined the interplay between the two statutes, noting that Vaughn required the jury to fix the value of stolen property to enable the lesser penalty and that Tidwell clarified restitution affects only punishment, not the offense's nature or jurisdiction.

criminal law

The case concerned truck owners who sought to enjoin the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services from requiring their trucks to stop at road-guard inspection stations for agricultural inspections under Sections 570.15 and 570.44(3), Florida Statutes, arguing the stops violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and equal protection even when no agricultural products were being transported. The trial court denied relief, finding the inspections reasonable exercises of state authority, and the district court affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, concluding that the mandatory stops for all trucks and trailers are a valid exercise of the state's police power to protect agriculture through disease control and grading, that the initial stop is not a search or unreasonable seizure, and that refusal triggers warrant requirements or other legal standards to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights.

business & regulatorycriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a challenge to Section 318.14(5), Florida Statutes, which allows a traffic infraction hearing official to impose a civil penalty up to $500 after a contested hearing, as opposed to the fixed $25 fine available by paying without a hearing. Appellant Levitz, charged with speeding, argued that the statute violated due process and equal protection by penalizing him for exercising his right to a hearing and confrontation of witnesses. The County Court denied the motion, found him guilty after a hearing, and imposed the standard fine plus costs. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the statute constitutional because it offers an expedited compliance option akin to a plea bargain settlement, provides full due process rights at any requested hearing (including proof beyond a reasonable doubt), and does not impermissibly burden constitutional rights, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Colten v. Kentucky.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a Florida divorce judgment requiring the former husband to pay child support, alimony, mortgage costs, and attorney fees. After he failed to make payments and transferred his interest in the marital home, the trial court held him in civil contempt and imposed a jail sentence that could be purged by payment. The district court affirmed without requiring an explicit finding on ability to pay. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, holding that a contempt order for nonpayment must include an affirmative finding that the person either currently has the ability to comply or previously had it but lost it through their own fault or neglect. The court emphasized that such a finding is necessary to avoid punishing inability to pay and that the burden is on the defaulting party to show intervening circumstances beyond their control.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a territorial dispute over electric service to the Copeland Settlement area in Alachua County between Clay Electric Cooperative, a rural cooperative, and the Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Electric, Water and Sewer Utilities Board, a municipal utility. The Florida Public Service Commission, exercising new statutory authority under Section 366.04(2)(e), ordered the parties to develop a territorial agreement and directed the Board to refrain from offering electric service or duplicating facilities in the area, based on factors including the utilities' expansion capabilities, the rural nature of the settlement, and needs for water and sewer service. The Board petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for certiorari review, challenging the Commission's jurisdiction and orders. The Court denied the petition, holding that the Commission's findings were supported by competent substantial evidence and that the orders met the essential requirements of law, including the statutory limits on resolving such disputes without improper delegation of authority.

business & regulatory

The case involved Howard Banks, who was convicted after a jury trial of sexual battery on an 8-year-old boy under Florida Statute 794.011(2) for placing his mouth on the child's penis. Banks was adjudicated a mentally disordered sex offender and committed for treatment, but he received a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years before parole eligibility after stipulating to avoid a death penalty phase. On appeal, he argued that the evidence failed to prove the required 'union' under the statute and that the mandatory minimum sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the evidence sufficient because Banks' oral contact with the victim's penis met the definition of sexual battery and holding that the sentencing statute was constitutional based on prior precedents upholding similar mandatory terms. The court noted that any sentencing reconsideration would need to come from the executive branch rather than judicial intervention.

criminal law

This case involved a husband's petition for dissolution of marriage in Florida, which the wife contested by denying the marriage was irretrievably broken and seeking a continuance for possible reconciliation, along with temporary alimony. After multiple continuances due to the parties' illnesses, the trial court entered a partial final judgment dissolving the marriage while reserving other issues like property distribution, despite the wife not having presented her testimony; the husband later died, leading his executor to continue the proceedings. The district court reversed the dissolution order, finding errors in notice, the judge's suggestion of a motion, and failure to consider the wife's evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the reversal in part due to the trial court's failure to consider the wife's deposition as indicated but quashed the holding that such partial judgments are merely interlocutory, holding instead that they can finally resolve marital status while reserving other matters under state statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a newspaper photographer who entered a private home at the invitation of fire and police officials investigating a fatal fire, took photographs including of the victim's body outline on the floor, and published them in a news story; the mother of the deceased child sued the publisher for trespass, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on grounds of implied consent by custom and usage for news coverage at such scenes. The district court reversed on the trespass and related privacy claims, holding that the entry constituted an actionable intrusion. On review, the Florida Supreme Court discharged the writ of certiorari, finding no direct conflict with prior precedent that would confer jurisdiction under the state constitution and no certification of a question of great public interest by the district court.

torts & liabilityfree speech

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Oswald Miller, who fractured his finger in a workplace accident while employed by Oolite Industries and sought temporary total disability benefits, additional permanent partial disability ratings, medical payments, and attorney's fees. The Judge of Industrial Claims awarded benefits after a significant delay beyond the statutory 30-day period following the hearing, but the Industrial Relations Commission reversed solely due to that untimely order and remanded for a new trial. The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the 30-day deadline in Section 440.25(3)(b), Florida Statutes, is directory rather than mandatory, so the delay did not divest the judge of jurisdiction or require reversal. The court relied on prior precedent interpreting similar timing provisions as non-jurisdictional and remanded the case for the Commission to address the remaining substantive issues on appeal.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim in which the Judge of Industrial Claims issued an order more than 250 days after the final hearing, prompting the Industrial Relations Commission to reverse it on the sole ground that the order violated the 30-day deadline in Section 440.25(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether that statutory time limit is mandatory and strips the judge of jurisdiction if exceeded. The Court held that the provision is directory rather than mandatory, citing precedent such as Jarvis v. Miami Retreat Foundation that had upheld late orders when supported by the hearing record. The Court therefore quashed the Commission's decision and remanded for review of the remaining issues, including the validity of the pro hac vice appointment.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a tattoo artist challenging a Florida statute (Section 877.04) that banned tattooing except when performed by licensed physicians or dentists, after her occupational license was voided and she faced charges. The trial court ruled the law unconstitutional as applied, finding it violated the plaintiff's right to pursue her chosen profession and equal protection by creating an arbitrary classification. The Florida Supreme Court reversed on direct appeal, upholding the statute as a valid exercise of the state's police power to regulate occupations in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, with rights to contract and pursue a business subject to reasonable restrictions. The court reasoned that doubts about validity should be resolved in favor of constitutionality and that the classification bore a reasonable relation to the legislative purpose.

business & regulatorycivil rights

This case involved a dispute over the timeliness of an appeal from a post-judgment order in a mortgage foreclosure action. After the trial court entered a final foreclosure judgment and later a second order directing payment of funds from a court registry to the lender, the borrower filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied, followed by a notice of appeal. The lender moved to quash the appeal as untimely, arguing it should have been filed within 30 days of the payment order rather than the rehearing denial. The Florida Supreme Court held that the post-decretal order was final in nature because it dispositively resolved the distribution of the funds, making it subject to rehearing that tolled the appeal period, and therefore approved the district court's denial of the motion to quash.

procedureproperty

This case involved the revocation of James Lee Spratling's probation for prior assault and battery convictions after he was acquitted of a subsequent murder charge. The trial court revoked probation immediately following the acquittal based on trial evidence suggesting Spratling had carried a pistol, which violated a probation condition, without providing prior notice of that specific violation or conducting a separate hearing. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that due process required notice and a dedicated probation revocation hearing rather than relying on the criminal trial. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that absent stipulation or consent, a criminal trial cannot substitute for a probation revocation hearing and that the defendant must receive proper notice of the claimed violation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned property owners who sought a declaratory judgment that changed circumstances had rendered residential-use restrictions on their land unenforceable and inequitable to uphold. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the district court affirmed, holding that declaratory relief is unavailable when restrictions are unambiguous and the only disputes are factual. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, concluding that the Declaratory Judgments Act authorizes such an action because the owners were in doubt about their rights under the restrictions and all interested parties were before the court.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Alachua County seeking judicial validation of special obligation bonds and public improvement revenue bonds to finance various county capital projects, such as construction of facilities and recreational areas. The bonds were to be repaid solely from revenue sharing funds, race track funds, and other non-ad valorem revenues, with explicit disclaimers against any pledge of ad valorem taxes. The State Attorney challenged the issuance on grounds including the projects' commencement prior to the bond ordinances and potential indirect effects on ad valorem taxation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's validation, holding that the financing plan complied with statutory authority and constitutional requirements by avoiding any pledge of ad valorem taxes and that prior project work did not invalidate the bonds under precedent.

taxes

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit rape, received a prison sentence in August 1974, and later filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence that was denied in December 1974 before filing a notice of appeal in January 1975. The district court dismissed the appeal as untimely, and the Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari to review for conflict with a prior decision allowing certain post-conviction motions to toll appeal deadlines. The Court determined that the motion for reconsideration could not be treated as a permissible motion under Rule 3.800 or as equivalent to a motion for new trial because it sought to vacate the conviction and impose probation rather than merely reduce the sentence, creating no direct conflict with the cited precedent. Accordingly, the Court discharged the writ of certiorari, leaving the appeal dismissal in place.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the mother of John Scott Hanley, who died at age 19, seeking damages including those available only for minor children under the Florida Wrongful Death Act. The certified question was whether the 1973 Florida Emancipation Act (Ch. 73-21) changed the definition of "minor" in the Wrongful Death Act from under age 21 to under age 18. The Florida Supreme Court answered yes, holding that the Emancipation Act's plain language removing the disability of nonage at 18, repealing inconsistent laws, and directing statutory conformity amended the earlier definition. The court reasoned that the right to recover for a minor's wrongful death is tied to the minor's legal obligations of support within the family, which end at 18 under the new statute.

torts & liability

This case concerned whether an automobile liability insurer could deny coverage to its insured based on the insured's complete failure to report an accident or cooperate with the insurer, despite Florida's Financial Responsibility Act and related reforms. The plaintiff obtained a $52,000 judgment against the insured driver for injuries from a car crash, but the insurer had received notice only from the plaintiff's attorney and never located or heard from the insured, who was evading service. The trial court severed the coverage issue, found after a non-jury hearing that the non-cooperation was total, material, and substantially prejudicial to the insurer, and ruled there was no coverage. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a material breach causing substantial prejudice to the insurer still permits denial of coverage under the policy terms, and that recent statutory and case-law developments did not eliminate the cooperation requirement.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case Nardone v. Reynolds concerned a medical malpractice action filed in 1971 by parents on behalf of their minor son, who suffered severe neurological injuries after multiple brain surgeries and procedures at Jackson Memorial Hospital in 1965. The Florida Supreme Court answered certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding the statute of limitations under F.S.A. 95.11(4), specifically when the limitation period begins for parents in their own right and as next friends, and for the minor; whether knowledge of obtainable medical records is imputed to them; the effect of non-disclosure on tolling for fraudulent concealment; and whether physicians have a duty to disclose material facts about possible causes. The court held that the period commences upon knowledge of the changed physical condition even without knowledge of its cause, that such record knowledge is imputed to guardians and the minor, that mere non-disclosure without misrepresentation does not toll the statute, and that a duty to disclose exists whose breach can impact limitations. The reasoning centered on the statutory text, prior Florida precedent on discovery and concealment, and the balance between protecting claimants and ensuring timely claims.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability