Admin

Admin

WHEN APPELLATE COURT REVERSES AND REQUIRES “MODIFICATION” OF AN EXISTING JUDGMENT, INTEREST STILL RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THAT JUDGMENT (AND NOT THE VERDICT WHICH WOULD BE THE CASE IF THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED FOR A JUDGMENT).

SECTION 768.28(5) LIMITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVER TO $200,000 WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME NEGLIGENT ACT--QUESTION CERTIFIED: DOES THE $200,000 CAP APPLY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS.

WHEN APPELLATE COURT REVERSES AND REQUIRES “MODIFICATION” OF AN EXISTING JUDGMENT, INTEREST STILL RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THAT JUDGMENT (AND NOT THE VERDICT WHICH WOULD BE THE CASE IF THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED FOR A JUDGMENT).

SECTION 768.28(5) LIMITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVER TO $200,000 WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME NEGLIGENT ACT--QUESTION CERTIFIED: DOES THE $200,000 CAP APPLY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS.

Criminal law -- Discovery -- Depositions -- Federal marshall

Criminal law -- Discovery -- Depositions -- Federal marshall -- Where police department detective that investigated and arrested defendant is cross-designated as federal marshall,

Attorney's fees -- Timeliness of motion

Attorney's fees -- Timeliness of motion -- Defendant not entitled to award of statutorily mandated attorney's fees under section 776.032(3) where defendant filed motion for fees and costs after the thirty-day time limit imposed by rule 1.525 had expired, and trial court had not determined entitlement to fees in its judgment

Arbitration -- Torts -- Action against online job recruiting service asserting claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation

Arbitration -- Torts -- Action against online job recruiting service asserting claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation,

TRIAL COURT DEPARTED FROM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN APPLYING WRONG LEGAL STANDARD, AND DETERMINING THAT PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHED A REASONABLE BASIS FOR RECOVERY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING A MOTION FOR JUROR INTERVIEW BASED ON ALLEGED NONDISCLOSURE WHEN NEITHER ATTORNEY ASKED THE PANEL A SPECIFIC QUESTION WHICH WOULD HAVE ELICITED THE DISCLOSURE--CLAIM THAT JUROR’S FACEBOOK PAGE REVEALED AN IMPROPER CO

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DECLARES LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM’S LIEN LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Page 1 of 15

Marco Island Office

Map & Directions | Email Us

651 South Collier Blvd., Suite 2H
Marco Island, FL 34145
239-430-0001 fax 239-430-0002

JoomShaper